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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on March 3rd, 2026. Claims 2-13, 22-24, 26, 28-34, 36-49, and 51-52 have been canceled as such claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, 63, 64, and 72-78 are pending consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the new drawings.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the cancellations.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) with respect to claims 50, 63-64 are not withdrawn in light of the amendments. Please see 112(b) and response to arguments sections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 74 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 74 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the conduit is coupled to a respiratory therapy device generating pressurized air, wherein the conduit is configured to deliver pressurized air from the respiratory therapy device to a user interface configured to be worn on a head of a user, the method further comprising: determining a sleep-wake status of the user based on the determination that the conduit is moving or has moved; determining a sleep-related parameter based on the sleep-wake status; and adjusting sleep-staging of the user to apply respiratory therapy to a sleep-related respiratory disorder through delivering pressurized air via the respiratory therapy device”.
While the specification does state that the conduit is configured to deliver pressurized air from the respiratory therapy device to a user interface configured to be worn on a head of a user [0028] and determining a sleep-wake status of the user based on the determination that the conduit is moving or has moved; determining a sleep-related parameter based on the sleep-wake status [0079] and [0111], there is no mention of adjusting sleep-staging of the user to apply respiratory therapy to a sleep-related respiratory disorder through delivering pressurized air via the respiratory therapy device.
Claim 75 is also rejected due to being dependent off of claim 74.
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 50 is dependent off of claim 31; however, claim 31 has been cancelled making claim 50 an orphan claim. In other words, claim 50 is rendered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent from a canceled claim. For purposes of examination, claim 50 is being treated as being dependent off claim 20.
Regarding claim 63, it is unclear how a first electronic circuit and a second electronic circuit (which appear to be configured the same according to the specification) are in the same segment but are having different percentages as a bend or movement in that segment would cause both the resistances to be similar. Simply, saying that the two circuits are different does not resolve this uncertainty as it could simply mean that the first electronic circuit is separate from the second electronic circuit. However, in light of the specification, the first percentage in a first segment and second percentage in the second segment of the first electronic circuit and the second percentage in a first segment and first percentage in the second segment of the second electronic circuit is being interpreted as the first electronic circuit is only measuring movement of the first segment where it measures a higher percentage of resistance in a first segment than the second segment and the second electronic circuit is only measuring movement of the second segment where it measures a higher percentage in the second segment). It is recommended to amend claim 63 to state the first segment and second segment have different properties as stated in the interview (see interview summary mailed 03/05/2026)
Claim 64 is rejected due to being dependent off of claim 63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 recites at least one step or instruction for analyzing data to identify magnitudes in current to determine whether the conduit has moved, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A method for determining movement of a conduit (additional element) (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG), the method comprising:
generating data associated with a first electrical property of a first electronic component portion of an electronic circuit, the electronic circuit being coupled to the conduit; the first electrical property being configured to change based at least in part on movement of the first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit from movement of the conduit, wherein the electronic circuit includes a current sensor and a second electronic component, wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current, and wherein the second electronic component has a second electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on a temperature of the second electronic component (pre-insignificant extra-solutional activity),;
analyzing the generated data (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) to:
identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determining, based at least in part on the analysis, that a value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
responsive to the determination that the value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determining that the conduit is moving or has moved (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Specifically, Claim 20 recites
A system comprising:
a conduit (additional element);
an electronic circuit coupled to the conduit (additional elements),
the electronic circuit including a first electronic component (additional element) having a first electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on movement of the portion of the electronic circuit (pre-insignificant extra-solutional activity),
a current sensor (additional element), and
a second electronic component (additional element),
wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit (pre-insignificant extra-solutional activity),
wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current (pre-insignificant extra-solutional activity), and
wherein the second electronic component has a second electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on a temperature of the second electronic component (pre-insignificant extra-solutional activity);
a memory storing machine-readable instructions (additional element); and
a control system including one or more processors (additional elements) configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
receive measured current data associated with the first electrical property of the electronic circuit from the current sensor (extra-solutional activity);
analyze the received measured current data (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) to:
identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determine, based at least in part on the analysis, that a value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
responsive to the determination that the value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determine that the conduit is moving or has moved (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 14, 15, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 14, 15, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
a conduit (the other additional elements listed in claim 20 are not included in claim 1 as the recited limitation is generating data associated with said additional elements rather than positively reciting them) as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; and
a conduit, electronic circuit, first electronic component, second electronic component, current sensor, memory, and controller with one or more processors in independent Claim 20 and its dependent claims
are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (control system including one or more processors as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a conduit (the other additional elements listed in claim 20 are not included in claim 1 as the recited limitation is generating data associated with said additional elements rather than positively reciting them) as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; and a conduit, electronic circuit, first electronic component, second electronic component, current sensor, memory, and controller with one or more processors in independent Claim 20 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the control system can include any number of processors (the processor can be a general or special purpose processor or microprocessor). The control system (or any other control system) or a portion of the control system such as the processor (or any other processor(s) or portion(s) of any other control system), can be used, see paragraph 0023.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term control system and one or more processors are reasonably construed as a generic computing device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control system and one or more processors. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Further, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routing, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known in the field that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Therefore, see Dirks et al. (US 6135106) which describes a conventional CPAP device using conventional circuitry in the sensing assembly of the conduit 16 (col. 2, lines 8-18) in combination with Applicant’s specification (paragraph 81 for the first component, paragraph 96 for the current sensor, and paragraph 98 for the second component). Other than the paragraphs listed above, none of the specification or figures seem to give any particulars of the first component, current sensor, or second component. Particularly, Applicant’s drawings show these components as boxes and the specification describes these additional elements as a list of components.
Further, see Gropper (US 5540220) which discloses all the structural components/additional elements (conduit, electrical circuit with current sensors and electrical components, controller, CPU, memory, etc.) which are used to measure current based on changes of heat/temperature in the sensing tube (see col. 9, lines 57-67 and col. 10, lines 1-32). Other prior arts of similar configurations include: Hobbs (US 20200147336), Kotas (US 2811855), Bath (US 20110023874), and Schellenberg (EP0185650).
For at least the above reasons, method and systems of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35, 50, and 72-78 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claim 63 further clarifies the first electronic circuit and second electronic circuit being different as the difference in percentage value are based on the corresponding segments having different properties, therefore, causing the percentages to be different. As currently amended, claim 63 does not state that the first electronic circuit and second electronic circuit have different properties rather that they are different. This could simply refer to them being two separate circuits rather than different properties as intended. As stated in the interview, it is recommended to amend claim 63 to state that the segments have different properties to overcome the 112b rejection.
On pages 11-18 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and traverses the 101 rejection.
More specifically, on page 12 of the remarks (section A), Applicant argues that the amended claims no longer constitute an Abstract Idea as the measurement of current via a current sensor cannot be practically performed as a mental step. The analysis that includes translation of the measured current data into a determination of movement also cannot be reasonably be performed as a mental step. Applicant further states, that the elements of the amended claim cannot be practically performed by a human mind as a human mind could not practically sense and measure current flowing through a circuit, or determine movement or temperature of a conduit from the current. However, the measurement of current via a current sensor is not being interpreted as part of the abstract idea, but rather as a prior insignificant extra-solutional activity in order to gather information which can be used to analyze the measured value of the current to determine movement or temperature of a conduit. “Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” (see MPEP 2106.5(g)). The Examiner disagrees with the statement that analyzing current measurements to determine movement or temperature of a conduit being unable to be performed in the human mind as that would simply require a human analyzing/looking at data of measured current, looking at the magnitudes in the current, and based off the magnitude determining that the conduit has moved. In other words, analyzing data, determining “key points” of the data, and making interpolations based off said key points which can be done by a human.
On pages 12-13 of the remarks (section B and subsection 1(a)), Applicant further states that the amended claims are directed toward a system and method of determining movement of a conduit and temperature of a conduit and now claims 1 and 20 further recite the “electronic circuit that measures the current data includes an electronic component configured to change an electrical property based on movement, a current sensor, and another electronic component with an electrical property that changes based on temperature”. It is noted by the examiner that claim 1 states that the method is generating data associated with (…) “electronic circuit that measures the current data includes an electronic component configured to change an electrical property based on movement, a current sensor, and another electronic component with an electrical property that changes based on temperature”; therefore, the recited method limitation does not positively recite the structural components/additional elements. Claim 20 does positively recite structural/computer components; however, they are merely additional elements that are not significantly more that does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. In other words, the determination of a conduit (the abstract idea) is not being integrated in a closed loop in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture (an example would be: a ventilator configured to adjust the flow based on the determination of movement in a conduit)). Further, this application is not improving the functioning of a computer not is a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition.
On pages 13-15 of the remarks (section B, subsection 1(b) and section 2), Applicant further argues that fact that each element is well-known does not preclude a finding that the claim is significantly more. Applicant states that inventive concepts may be found in non-conventional and non-generic components that are individually well-known and conventional; in other words, additional elements that are well-understood may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application. More specifically, Applicant argues that the office action has not provided a rationale as why the elements of a conduit or circuit in the conduit constitute a generic computing device (see also amended 101 rejection above regarding the additional elements) and the combination of a conduit, a circuit with two components, and a current sensor constitute a unique combination that integrates the abstract concept to a practical application of measuring movement and temperature of a conduit. However, a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routing, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known in the field that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Therefore, see Dirks et al. (US 6135106) which describes a conventional CPAP device using conventional circuitry in the sensing assembly of the conduit 16 (col. 2, lines 8-18) in combination with Applicant’s specification (paragraph 81 for the first component, paragraph 96 for the current sensor, and paragraph 98 for the second component). Other than the paragraphs listed above, none of the specification or figures seem to give any particulars of the first component, current sensor, or second component. Particularly, Applicant’s drawings show these components as boxes and the specification describes these additional elements as a list of components. Further, see Gropper (US 5540220) which discloses all the structural components/additional elements (conduit, electrical circuit with current sensors and electrical components, controller, CPU, memory, etc.) which are used to measure current based on changes of heat/temperature in the sensing tube (see col. 9, lines 57-67 and col. 10, lines 1-32). Other prior arts of similar configurations include: Hobbs (US 20200147336), Kotas (US 2811855), Bath (US 20110023874), and Schellenberg (EP0185650).
On pages 16-18 of the remarks (section 3 and section 4), Applicant argues that claims 21 and new claim 74 are separately eligible as they include a respiratory device and user interface as well as a conduit that supplies pressurized air. The examiner agrees that the subject matter of “adjusting sleep-staging of the user to apply respiratory therapy to a sleep-related respiratory disorder through delivering pressurized air via a respiratory therapy device” based on sleep-related parameters/status that is determined from the conduit determination would overcome the 101 rejection by integrating it into practical application; however, this limitation introduces new matter (see 112(a) section above) as nowhere in the disclosure does it state that the user is adjusting sleep-staging/respiratory therapy based on the sleep-related parameters, sleep-wake status, or the determination that the conduit is moving or has moved. While paragraphs 40 and 79 of the published specification discusses using the movement data/physiological data to determine sleep-related activities and more accurate sleep-staging based on movement, which in turn allows for the delivery of a better user experience and potentially boosting therapy compliance in paragraph 111, it does not disclose adjusting the sleep-staging using the respiratory device. Claim 21 recites that “a respiratory therapy device generates a supply of pressurized air, wherein the conduit is configured to deliver pressurized air from the respiratory device to a user interface, the user interface being configured to be worn on a head of a user. A respiratory device that generates pressurized and delivers the air through a conduit is a well-known configuration of additional elements in the art see Dirks et al. (US 6135106) which describes a conventional CPAP device with a blower that deliver air through a conduit to a patient interface (col. 2, lines 8-18). Further the abstract idea of determination movement of a conduit is not integrated into practical application (i.e. the respiratory device adjusting flow based on the determination of movement of a conduit).
Applicant further argues, that claim 72 further recites a technical improvement. However, in order to determine a technical improvement the disclosure must “provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement”, “it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art”, and further “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). The applicant argues that the technical improvement is allowing measurement of movement through an existing heater wire as well as allowing both heating and measurement of movement through the same component. However, there is no improvement being done to the coiled wire, but rather using an existing heater wire as known in the art and measuring values as stated in the specification.
Applicant further argues that claim 73 further recites that “wherein the first segment of the conduit is adjacent to the user interface to indicate movement of a head of a user) is a technical improvement. However, as stated above it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art”, “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”, and further “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Paragraph 79 provides a bare assertion that the first electronic component being more towards the user as it is advantageous because it can detect movement of the user’s head and more accurate determination of relevant movement by eliminating non-user movement, but does not further explain. Even if it was considered a technical improvement, the claim itself does not reflect the disclosed improvement to the respiratory field.
On page 18 of the remarks (section 5), Applicant further argues that new claim 74 recites an adjusting sleep-staging of the user to apply respiratory therapy to a sleep-related respiratory disorder through delivering pressurized air. However, as stated above, the new claim 74 creates 112(a) issues (see sections 3 and 4 above).
On page 19 of the remarks, Applicant traverse the 102/103 rejections of the claims due to the new amendments. The Examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the 102/103 rejections of the claims; however, maintains that they are still rejected under 112a, 112b, and 101 as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 20, 63, and their dependents would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112a, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Bath (US 20110023874) in view of Kotas (US 2811855) and further in view of VanDyke (Website: What is a Hall Effect Sensor?) and Juretich (WO 2017018974).
In particular, Bath discloses
A method for determining movement of a conduit (using a PAP system with an electrical circuit with wires that can be used to determine impedance in the tubing), the method comprising:
generating data associated with a first electrical property of a first electronic component portion of an electronic circuit (see Figs. 18, 20-28; sensing and control circuit comprising three wires 504, 506, 508, [0081] and [0088], where the circuit is able to send and receive data [0026], [0148]),
the electronic circuit being coupled to the conduit ((see Figs. 15 and 18; wires 504, 506, 508 are supported by spiral ribbing 328 of tube 325; [0072]),
the first electrical property being configured to change based at least in part on movement of the first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit (uses wires 506 and 508 to act as resistors where signal wire 504 detects high/low impedance; [0081] and [0088]) from movement of the conduit,
analyzing the generated received data to:
determining, based at least in part on the analysis, that a value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed (detects/determines high/low impedance (change in impedance), [0081] and [0088], may use a microprocessor to calibrate raw signals or encode/compress data; [0159])
wherein the electronic circuit includes a second electronic component (Fig. 18 and see Fig. 23; NTC thermistor 410; [0081] and [0088]; thermistors measure its own resistance to determine change in temperature)
wherein the second electronic component has a second electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on a temperature of the second electronic component (Fig. 18 and see Fig. 23; NTC thermistor 410; [0081] and [0088]; thermistors measure its own resistance to determine change in temperature);
Bath does not disclose wherein the electronic circuit includes a current sensor, wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current, analyzing the generated received data to: identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component; and identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component; responsive to the determination that the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determining that the conduit is moving or has moved;
However, Kotas discloses a flexible tube arrangement with an electrical circuit where
the first electrical property being configured to change based at least in part on movement of the first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit from movement of the conduit (Fig. 1; uses a resistive type of strain element 15 detects change in resistance, Col. 2, lines 27-32)
responsive to the determination that the value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determining that the conduit is moving or has moved 9Fig. 1; uses a resistive type of strain element 15 to detect the deflection and stressing of the wall of the tube 11, Col. 2, lines 27-32; change in resistance is used to detect deflection and stressing (movement) of tube).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention tom modify the circuitry in the tubing of Bath with the resistance strain element of Kotas to be able to detect the deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32). It further would have been obvious that the circuitry in the tubing of Bath being able to detect impedance using resistors (Bath: [0081) would have yielded the predictable results of being able to detect deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32).
The modified device of Bath does not disclose wherein the electronic circuit includes a current sensor, wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current; analyzing the generated received data to: identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component; and identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component.
VanDyke discloses hall effect sensors which can be used as a motion, position, and current sensor (see Paragraphs under What is a Hall Effect Sensor; and Applications for Hall Sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing and control circuit and wires of Bath to further include a hall effect sensor as taught in VanDyke to be able to measure the magnetic field of the current and providing a voltage that indicates the fluctuations in the magnetic field of the current caused by changes in position proximity, pressure, speed, temperature, and other factors (VanDyke: Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to do such a modification as hall-effect sensors have been used in the art to measure contraction and expansion of tubes (Juretich: [0005]).
wherein the electronic circuit (Bath: see Figs. 15 and 18; sensing and control circuit comprising three wires 504, 506, 508; [0081] and [0088]) further includes a current sensor (VanDyke: hall effect sensor, Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?), the current sensor being configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit 9(VanDyke: measures magnetic field of current; Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?), wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current (generates a voltage proportional to strength of the magnetic field of the current (current running through control circuit and wires of Bath); Vandyke: Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? and Juretich: [0005]);
analyzing the generated received data to:
identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit ((VanDyke: fluctuation in magnetic field (magnitudes), Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? ; Bath: current flowing through sensing and control circuit),
wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component (VanDyke: measure fluctuations in the magnetic field (magnitude) caused by changes in position and pressure, Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? ; it is noted that bending would change the position, proximity, and pressure of the tube of Bath and can be compared to the resistance values measured in wires 504 and 508); and
identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit ((VanDyke: measure fluctuation in the magnetic field (in other words multiple fluctuations); Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?),
while VanDyke does disclose the voltage generated indicated by the fluctuations in the magnetic field (of the current)can be caused by temperature. It would not have been rendered obvious wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component. The disclosure of VanDyke merely states that the fluctuation can be caused by position or temperature; there is no indication on how to determine whether a second magnitude (fluctuation) is caused by temperature and how to differentiate between the first and second magnitude.
Therefore, Bath, Kotas, Vandyke, and Juretich do not teach, disclose, or render obvious “wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component” in addition to other limitations.
Claims 14, 15, 74, and 75 would also be allowable if written to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art of record is Bath (US 20110023874) in view of Kotas (US 2811855) and further in view of Hobbs (US 20200147336), VanDyke (Website: What is a Hall Effect Sensor?) and Juretich (WO 2017018974).
In particular Bath discloses,
a system (Figs. 1-3; PAP system with PAP device, conduit, and patient interface; [0080]) comprising:
a conduit; an electronic circuit coupled to the conduit (see Figs. 15 and 18; sensing and control circuit comprising three wires 504, 506, 508 are supported by spiral ribbing 328 of tube 325; [0072]),
the electronic circuit including a first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit having a first electrical property (uses wires 506 and 508 to act as resistors where signal wire 504 detects high/low impedance; [0081] and [0088]);
a second electronic component (Fig. 18 and see Fig. 23; NTC thermistor 410; [0081] and [0088]; thermistors measure its own resistance to determine change in temperature),
wherein the second electronic component has a second electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on a temperature of the second electronic component (Fig. 18 and see Fig. 23; NTC thermistor 410; [0081] and [0088]; thermistors measure its own resistance to determine change in temperature);
analyze the received measured current data to:
determine, based at least in part on the analysis, that a value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed (detects/determines high/low impedance (change in impedance), [0081] and [0088], may use a microprocessor to calibrate raw signals or encode/compress data; [0159]).
Bath does not disclose a current sensor, and wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current, and a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions to: receive measured current data associated with the first electrical property of the electronic circuit from the current sensor; analyze the received measured current data to: identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component; and identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component; the electronic circuit including a first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit having a first electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on movement of the portion of the electronic circuit; and responsive to the determination that the value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determine that the conduit is moving or has moved.
the electronic circuit including a first electronic component portion of the electronic circuit having a first electrical property that is configured to change based at least in part on movement of the portion of the electronic circuit (Fig. 1; uses a resistive type of strain element 15 detects change in resistance, Col. 2, lines 27-32);
and responsive to the determination that the value of the first electrical property of the electronic circuit has changed, determine that the conduit is moving or has moved (Fig. 1; uses a resistive type of strain element 15 to detect the deflection and stressing of the wall of the tube 11, Col. 2, lines 27-32; change in resistance is used to detect deflection and stressing (movement) of tube).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention tom modify the circuitry in the tubing of Bath with the resistance strain element of Kotas to be able to detect the deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32). It further would have been obvious that the circuitry in the tubing of Bath being able to detect impedance using resistors (Bath: [0081) would have yielded the predictable results of being able to detect deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32).
The modified device of Bath does not disclose a current sensor, and wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current, and a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions to: receive measured current data associated with the first electrical property of the electronic circuit from the current sensor; analyze the received measured current data to: identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component; and identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component.
Hobbs discloses an analogous PAP system with electrical circuitry using resistors with
a memory storing machine-readable instructions (memory that contains software code with instructions; [0059]); and
a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions (controller 102 may comprise a processor or microprocessor with memory with controller being able of control operation in accordance with instructions; [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bath to have a controller with a processor and memory containing instructions of Hobbs to be able to control the operation using a computer program, further functionality of the breathing circuit, and store data (Hobbs: [0059], [0081], and [0178]).
The modified device of Bath further does not disclose a current sensor, and wherein the current sensor is configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current, and receive measured current data associated with the first electrical property of the electronic circuit from the current sensor; analyze the received measured current data to: identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component; and identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit, wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component.
VanDyke discloses hall effect sensors which can be used as a motion, position, and current sensor (see Paragraphs under What is a Hall Effect Sensor; and Applications for Hall Sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing and control circuit and wires of Bath to further include a hall effect sensor as taught in VanDyke to be able to measure the magnetic field of the current and providing a voltage that indicates the fluctuations in the magnetic field of the current caused by changes in position proximity, pressure, speed, temperature, and other factors (VanDyke: Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to do such a modification as hall-effect sensors have been used in the art to measure contraction and expansion of tubes (Juretich: [0005]).
a current sensor (VanDyke: hall effect sensor, Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?), and
wherein the current sensor being configured to measure a current flowing through the electronic circuit (VanDyke: measures magnetic field of current; Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?),
wherein the generated data associated with the first electrical property of the first electronic component is the measured current (generates a voltage proportional to strength of the magnetic field of the current (current running through control circuit and wires of Bath); Vandyke: Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? and Juretich: [0005]), and
receive measured current data associated with the first electrical property (detects/determines high/low impedance (change in impedance), [0081] and [0088], may use a microprocessor to calibrate raw signals or encode/compress data; [0159]) of the electronic circuit from the current sensor (generates a voltage proportional to strength of the magnetic field of the current (current running through control circuit and wires of Bath); Vandyke: Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? and Juretich: [0005]);
analyze the received measured current data to:
identify a first magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (VanDyke: fluctuation in magnetic field (magnitudes), Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? ; Bath: current flowing through sensing and control circuit),
wherein the identified first magnitude is associated with the movement of the first electronic component (VanDyke: measure fluctuations in the magnetic field (magnitude) caused by changes in position and pressure, Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor? ; it is noted that bending would change the position, proximity, and pressure of the tube of Bath and can be compared to the resistance values measured in wires 504 and 508); and
identify a second magnitude of a change in the current flowing through the electronic circuit (VanDyke: measure fluctuation in the magnetic field (in other words multiple fluctuations); Paragraphs 1-4 under What is a Hall Effect Sensor?),
while VanDyke does disclose the voltage generated indicated by the fluctuations in the magnetic field (of the current)can be caused by temperature. It would not have been rendered obvious wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component. The disclosure of VanDyke merely states that the fluctuation can be caused by position or temperature; there is no indication on how to determine whether a second magnitude (fluctuation) is caused by temperature and how to differentiate between the first and second magnitude.
Therefore, Bath, Kotas, Hobbs, Vandyke, and Juretich do not teach, disclose, or render obvious “wherein the second magnitude is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component” in addition to other limitations.
Claims 21, 27, 35, 50, and 76-78 would also be allowable if written to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections.
Regarding claim 63, the closest prior art of record is Hobbs (US 20200147336) in view of Kotas (US 2811855).
In particular, Hobbs discloses
a system (Fig. 1; respiratory humidification system 100; [0055]) comprising:
a first electronic circuit coupled to a conduit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; electronic circuit of wire 206a and sensor 204a ; [0065]),
a first segment of the first electronic circuit, which corresponds to a first segment of the conduit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; first segment 202a of conduit which includes wire 206a and first sensor 204a; [0065]), having an electrical resistance (Figs. 2A and 2B; the sensor 204a may sense other parameter other than temperature and may be another sensing component such as a capacitive sensor, resistive sensor, or other conventional sensor; [0083]) that is configured to change by at least a first percentage based on movement of at least a portion of the first segment of the first electronic circuit;
a second electronic circuit coupled to the conduit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; electronic circuit of wire 206b and sensor 2b; [0065]),
wherein the first segment of the second electronic circuit is different from the first segment of the first electronic circuit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; electronic circuit of wire 206a and sensor 204a is different/separate from second segment 202b of conduit which includes wire 206b and second sensor 204b at the patient end; [0065]; [0065]);
a second segment of the second electronic circuit, which corresponds to the second segment of the conduit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; second segment 202b of conduit which includes wire 206b and second sensor 204b at the patient end; [0065]), having an electrical resistance (Figs. 2A and 2B; the sensor 204b may sense other parameter other than temperature and may be another sensing component such as a capacitive sensor, resistive sensor, or other conventional sensor; [0083]) that is configured to change by at least the first percentage based on movement of at least a portion of the second segment of the second electronic circuit;
wherein the second segment of the second electronic circuit is different from the second segment of the first electronic circuit (see Fig. 2A and 2B; electronic circuit of wire 206a and sensor 204a is different/separate from circuit from second segment 202b of conduit which includes wire 206b and second sensor 204b at the patient end; [0065]; [0065]).
Hobbs does not disclose an electrical resistance configured to change by at least a first percentage based on movement of at least a portion of the first segment of the first electronic circuit.
However, Kotas discloses a flexible tube arrangement with an electrical circuit where
an electrical resistance configured to change by at least a first percentage based on movement of at least a portion of the first segment of the first electronic circuit (Fig. 1; uses a resistive type of strain element 15 measures change in resistance based on deflection/expansion of the tube (strain element is bonded to the tube and therefore also moves with the tube), Col. 2, lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry in the tubing of Hobbs with the resistance strain element of Kotas to be able to detect the deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32). It further would have been obvious that the circuitry in the tubing of Hobbs that being able to measure other parameters (such as resistance) with a resistive sensor (Hobbs: [0083]) would have yielded the predictable results of being able to detect deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance (Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32).
It directly follows that the resultant circuity of Hobbs combined with the reasoning of movement and resistance of Kotas would render it obvious that the first resistive sensor 204a of Hobbs would be able to measure movement in the first segment 202a using resistance measured, where the first resistive sensor would not be able to measure resistance in the second segment 202b. Further, the second resistive sensor 204b of Hobbs would be able to measure movement in the second segment 202b using resistance measured by the second sensor and where the second resistive sensor would not be able to measure resistance in the first segment 202a.
However, the combination of Hobbs does not render obvious a second segment of the first electronic circuit, which corresponds to a second segment of the conduit having an electrical resistance that is configured to change no more than a second percentage that is less than the first percentage based on movement of the second segment of the first electronic circuit;
and a first segment of the second electronic circuit, which corresponds to the first portion of the conduit, having an electrical resistance that is configured to change no more than the second percentage based on movement of the first segment of the second electronic circuit.”
The first electronic circuit of Hobbs is only positioned in the chamber end/first segment (see Fig. 2A which shows wire 206A only in segment 202a) and vice versa where the second electronic circuit of Hobbs is only positioned in the patient end/second segment (see Fig. 2A which shows wire 206n only in segment 202b).
Claim 64 would also be allowable due to being dependent on claim 63.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gropper (US 5540220) – uses a heated wire in a flow sensor tube of a respiratory tube conduit to be used with a respiratory apparatus and discloses all the structural components (conduit, electrical circuit with current sensors and electrical components, controller, CPU, memory, etc.) of claims 1 and 20, but does not make determination on if the conduit has moved (it measures resistance/current changes based on heat/temperature), as seen with Bath it would have been obvious to modify with the detect the deflection and stressing of the tube using resistance of Kotas: Col. 2, lines 27-32. However, it still does not disclose the amended limitation above of wherein the second magnitude (of an identified second magnitude) is associated with the temperature of the second electronic component.
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 SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am -6pm.
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.
/S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights