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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 12, 14, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (US Pat. No. 4,869,733 in view of Cramer (Us Pat. No. 5,766,310), hereinafter Cramer.
Regarding claim 1, Stanford teaches a super enriched personal oxygen concentrator (SEOC) system that discards argon as waste(Col. 1: lines 63-67, figs. 1-3) , comprising a 5A molecular sieve personal oxygen concentrator (POC) for absorbing nitrogen (fig. 3: first beds 48a, 48b, alternatively absorbs and exhausts nitrogen, Col. 3: 5A beds preferentially adsorbs nitrogen )operatively attached to 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds for absorbing oxygen (See Figs. 1-3, passes from O2 concentrator A, or beds 45a, 48b to nitrogen concentrator or bed 80 containing 4A material, Col. 4: lines 18-22, bed or tank 80 filled with a 4A zeolite which absorbs oxygen but passes nitrogen and argon), and an argon waste outlet operatively attached to said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds for eliminating argon from said system (Argon waste at outlet 22, see Figs. 1-3, Col. 4: lines 20-25 passes argon through secondary gas outlet 22) wherein said POC is operatively connected through tubing to a two position solenoid valve (Fig. 3: valve 86) configured to pass input 95% oxygen to said 4A molecular SEOC beds (Col. 1: lines 35-36, 5A beds produce about 95% pure oxygen, Valve 86 passes input to 4A bed 80, Col. 6: lines 35-40) while exhausting enriched 99% oxygen to a product outlet. (Col. 4: lines 55-58, substantially pure oxygen product, product gas to outlet 24, Col. 6: lines 50-55)
Stanford only teaches one bed and not beds for the 4A molecular SEOC beds.
Cramer teaches a super enriched personal oxygen concentrator system (Col. 4: lines 36-40, Col. 5, Lines 25-30, Fig. 1) which has first and second 4A beds for adsorbing oxygen and discarding argon as waste. (col. 4 30-35, Fig. 2, beds 205 or 210).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Stanford to include multiple 4A beds as taught by Cramer to provide a continuous oxygen product supply at the outlet. (Col. 6: lines 49-50)
Regarding claim 2, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, and Stanford further teaches wherein said 5A molecular sieve POC includes an output operatively connected to a super enriched concentrator unit. (See figs. 1-3, output of O2 concentration, beds 48a, 48b, is connected to the SEOC system)
Regarding claim 3, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, and Stanford further teaches wherein flow of oxygen from said 5A molecular sieve POC to said super enriched oxygen concentrator unit is chosen from the group consisting of continuous, adjusted, and throttled pulsed. (Col. 6: lines 15-20, the oxygen and argon mixture is received substantially continuously)
Regarding claim 8, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, and Stanford teaches wherein oxygen and argon product flow from said 5A molecular sieve POC is passed directly into said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds. (Col. 6: lines 20-25, the oxygen and argon mixtures passes into the bed 80)
If applicant disagrees that Stanford teaches that the oxygen argon product flows directly into 4A molecular sieve beds Cramer wherein the oxygen and argon product flow from said first bed is passed directly into said second bed.(See Figs. 1 and 2 oxygen and argon flow steams 150, 250 flow directly into second bed)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the system of Stanford with flow directly into the 4A SEOC beds as taught by Cramer to eliminate a component and simplify the design of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein said 4A molecular sieve beds are approximately ¼ the size of said 5A molecular sieve POC.
However, Stanford teaches that the second bed (for absorbing oxygen) is seized relative to the first bed such that the mixture receiving region holds the amount of oxygen and argon separated during one cycle by the first bed. (Col. 4: lines 45-56) Therefore the size of the second bed is a results effective variable dependent upon the amount of oxygen and argon produced by the first bed. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Cramer so that the second bed is ¼ the size of the first bed as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , it is not invention to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller.
Regarding claim 14, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the super enriched personal concentrator of claim 1 and Stanford further teaches teaches a method of using the super enriched personal oxygen concentrator (Col. 1: lines 63-67, a method of producing super enriched oxygen, Figs. 1-3) of claim 1, including the steps of:
absorbing nitrogen from compressed air from a 5A molecular sieve personal oxygen concentrator (POC) (Col. 1: lines 24 material such as 5A zeolite, Col.2: lines 3-10, pumping atmospheric air into one or more first beds for preferentially adsorbing nitrogen);
absorbing oxygen with 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds (Col. 4: lines 20-25, second bed which a 4A separation material for adsorbing oxygen);
discarding unabsorbed argon from the compressed air as waste (Col. 4: lines 20-25 passes argon through secondary gas outlet 22, Figs. 1-3);
desorbing enriched oxygen produce (Col. 4: lines 38-44, the oxygen is desorbed and is captured); and
providing a 99% oxygen product (Col. 6: lines 56-57, substantially pure oxygen is received).
Regarding claim 16, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the method of claim 14, and Stanford further teaches including, after said absorbing nitrogen step, the step of passing oxygen and argon product flow from the 5A molecular sieve POC directly into the 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds, thereby pressurizing the 4A molecular beds. (Col. 6: lines 25-35, the pressurized oxygen and argon mixture is provided to the 4A bed.
If applicant disagrees that Stanford teaches that the oxygen argon product flows directly into 4A molecular sieve beds Cramer wherein the oxygen and argon product flow from said first bed is passed directly into said second bed.(See Figs. 1 and 2 oxygen and argon flow steams 150, 250 flow directly into second bed) thereby pressurizing the second bed. (the addition of the gas to the bed would increase pressure in the bed, Col. 3: lines 35-45)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the system of Stanford with flow directly into the 4A SEOC beds as taught by Cramer to eliminate a component and simplify the design of the system.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (US Pat. No. 4,869,733 in view of Cramer (Us Pat. No. 5,766,310), hereinafter Cramer, and further in view of Baksh et al (US Pat. No. 6,475,265), hereinafter Baksh.
Regarding claim 4, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein absorption and desorption of the POC and super enriched oxygen concentrator unit are synchronized.
However, Baksh teaches a pressure swing adsorption method for production of an oxygen enriched gas (Abstract) in which first beds for absorbing nitrogen and synchronized with beds for absorbing oxygen. (Col. 8: lines 10-15)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Stanford in view of Cramer so that the absorption and desorption of the POC and super enriched oxygen concentrator are synchronized to achieve better utilization of the absorbent material and eliminate a necessity of a buffer tank between stages. (Col. 8: lines 10-15)
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford in view of Cramer, and further in view of Vaseen (US Pat. No. 4,150,956), hereinafter Vaseen.
Regarding claim 6, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 5, and Cramer further teaches including a pump downstream from said 5A molecular sieve POC and said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds before said product outlet. (Fig. 2: 255, Col. 4: lines 7-10, pump withdraw adsorbed oxygen) but does not teach a blower.
However, Vaseen teaches that that air may be moved by a pump, compressor, or blower.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the pump of Stanford in view of Cramer with a blower as taught by Vaseen since either would provide the predictable use of moving air though the system.
Regarding claim 17, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches further the step of increasing from the personal oxygen concentrator with a pump attached downstream of said 5A molecular sieve POC and said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds. (Fig. 2: 255, Col. 4: lines 7-10, pump withdraw adsorbed oxygen) but does not teach a blower.
However, Vaseen teaches that that air may be moved by a pump, compressor, or blower.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the pump of Stanford in view of Cramer with a blower as taught by Vaseen since either would provide the predictable use of moving air though the system.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (US Pat. No. 4,869,733 in view of Cramer (Us Pat. No. 5,766,310), hereinafter Cramer, and further in view of Stanford et al (US Pat. No. 5,137,549), hereinafter Stanford ‘549.
Regarding claim 9, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, and Stanford further teaches wherein said 5a molecular sieve POC and said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds are operatively connected to one way check valves for allowing argon waste gas to flow out of each said 5A molecular sieve POC(Fig. 3: 56a, 56b, Col. 6: lines 10-15).
Stanford in view of Cramer does not teach one way check valves for allowing argon waste to flow out of each 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds when pressurized.
However, Stanford teaches a super enriched oxygen concentrator (Abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B) which has 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds (Fig. 1B: beds 90a, 90b) which are operatively connected to one way check valves (Fig. 1B: valves 98a, 98b) for allowing argon waste gas to flow out of each said 4A molecular sieve SEOC beds when pressurized. (Col. 7: lines 25-30)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Stanford in view of Cramer which the one way check valves of Stanford ‘546 in order to assure a unidirectional flow of secondary product and breakthrough feed stock. (Col. 7: lines 20-25)
Regarding claim 10, Stanford in view of Cramer and Stanford ‘549 teaches the system of claim 9, and Stanford ‘549 further teaches wherein said one way check valves are operatively connected to an adjustable flow control valve, which is operatively connected to said argon waste outlet. (Col. 7: lines37-41, restrictors 106a and 106b along with secondary product valve 108 selectively control the flow of argon to secondary product port 96)
Regarding claim 11, Stanford in view of Cramer and Stanford ‘459 teaches the system of claim 9, Stanford ‘459 further teaches a cut off valve between said adjustable flow control valve and said argon waste outlet. (Col. 8: lines 15-20, valve 108 closes when the bed is near breakthrough, therefore operating as a shut off valve)
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (US Pat. No. 4,869,733 in view of Cramer (Us Pat. No. 5,766,310), hereinafter Cramer, and further in view of Harvie (US 2003/0189492), hereinafter Harvie.
Regarding claim 13, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein said system includes a display of oxygen flow, battery levels, and a user’s SpO2 and pulse.
However, Harvie teaches a monitoring, alarm and adjustment system for users of oxygen (abstract) wherein said system includes a display of oxygen flow, battery levels, and a user’s SpO2 and pulse. (paragraph 23, a display device that discloses in real time the low battery, tank pressure, user’s pulse, user’s blood oxygen concentration, paragraph 99, Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Stanford in view of Cramer to include a display of oxygen flow, battery levels, a user’s SpO2 and pulse as taught by Harvie in order to provide information to the user about the tank, user’s pulse, user’s blook oxygen, low battery warning. (Paragraph 23)
Regarding claim 18, Stanford in view of Cramer teaches the method of claim 14, but does not teach including the step of adjusting flow of oxygen from the system based on a user’s SpO2 and pulse.
However, Harvie teaches a monitoring, alarm and adjustment system for users of oxygen (Abstract) which teaches that it is well known to monitor and adjust the flow of oxygen to user based on their pulse and blood oxygen concentration (the examiner notes spo2 is an indicator of blook oxygen concentration, Paragraph 18, 21, monitors user’s blood oxygen concentration level and pulse rate, mechanisms to automatically change the regulator setting)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stanford in view of Cramer to include the step of adjusting the flow of oxygen based on a user’s SpO2 and pulse as taught by Harvie in order to provide the appropriate amount of oxygen to the user based on the real-time needs of the user. (paragraph 21)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:30 pm MT.
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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785