DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 11 December 2025.
Claim(s) 26 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 26-33 and 45 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-30, 33, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casse et al. (US 2015/0302159 A1) in view of Casse et al. (US 2019/0240433 A1) [hereinafter cited as “Walker”], Perscheid (US 2020/0120430 A1), and Sareshwala et al. (US 11102239 B1).
Regarding Claim 26: Casse discloses a processor-implemented method of generating an identifier for use in verifying the configuration of a respiratory device,
the respiratory device comprising a flow generator and a processor, both the flow generator and the processor being contained in a housing, and the processor being configured to control operation of the respiratory device (The CPAP apparatus 10 can be known to those skilled in the art and comprises a housing 11 with an internal blower 12 (shown in dotted schematic form) for providing pressurised air to a patient 15 via a conduit 13 and a patient interface 14. See at least [0050]. Also: The apparatus can be controlled by a controller 22, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller or similar, that receives input via the user input interface 18, operates the apparatus and is configured to provide output on the user output 17, including the display. The controller can have internal memory and/or also access external memory. The controller can also receive input from the sensors 20, 21 and record, process, store and collate the information for transfer, storing, reporting and review purposes. See at least [0051]), the method being implemented by the processor and comprising:
determining an identifier, wherein the identifier is one identifier out of a plurality of identifiers (the controller 22 is configured via a program or otherwise to take the captured information and encode it into the two-dimensional barcode 19 for display on the medical apparatus display 17. The two-dimensional (2D) barcode 17 encodes … b) appended data that represents the (medical) data captured by the controller from the medical apparatus. The two dimensional barcode 19 is used to assist transfer of the medical data on the apparatus 10 to a computer system 30 (see FIG. 3) for storage, processing and distribution for review/display. See at least [0051]. Also: The two-dimensional barcode can take any form known to those skilled in the art and can be generated using any suitable algorithm or other process. One such example of a two-dimensional barcode is a QR code, but this is not the only option. See at least [0052]); and
outputting the identifier from the respiratory device (The two-dimensional barcode 19 is then displayed on the display 17 of the medical apparatus 10 by the controller 12, step 51. See at least [0057] and Fig. 1).
Casse does not appear to disclose controlling operation of the respiratory device in accordance with a plurality of operating parameters, each of the plurality of operating parameters being able to be set to a plurality of settings or receiving a present combination of settings of the respiratory device, wherein the present combination of settings is one combination of settings out of a plurality of combinations of settings for the respiratory device, and wherein each of the combinations of settings comprises a setting out of the plurality of settings for each of the plurality of operating parameters of the respiratory device.
However, Walker teaches controlling operation of the respiratory device in accordance with a plurality of operating parameters, each of the plurality of operating parameters being able to be set to a plurality of settings (a processor to receive the configuration and configure the medical device. See at least [0016]. Also: Each device record may contain a related device configuration profile which contains one or more of the following pieces of information: Device configuration settings (for example pressure set points, operating modes i.e., AUTO or CPAP, humidity set points). See at least [0035] and [0036]) and receiving a present combination of settings of the respiratory device, wherein the present combination of settings is one combination of settings out of a plurality of combinations of settings for the respiratory device, and wherein each of the combinations of settings comprises a setting out of the plurality of settings for each of the plurality of operating parameters of the respiratory device (Once home, the user activates the CPAP apparatus, step 15A. The CPAP apparatus connects itself to the cloud computing environment, and downloads the configuration, step 16A, which it uses to configure itself to provide the functionality, setup configurations and prescription as decided by the provider. See at least [0058]).
Casse provides a respiratory device including a processor that generates an identifier and displays it on a screen of the respiratory device in order to provide information to a user terminal, upon which the claimed invention’s control of a respiratory device and reception of configuration parameters for the respiratory device can be seen as an improvement. However, Walker demonstrates that the prior art already knew of processor controlled respiratory devices that receive configuration parameters directing the processor how to control the respiratory device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Walker to the respiratory device of Casse. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Walker would have resulted in an improved system which would both be computer controlled and which would allow for remote provision of control parameters, thus producing a more reliable device and one more convenient for third party management. As such, the application of Walker would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Casse and the teachings of Walker.
Additionally, Casse does not appear to disclose determining from the received combination of settings an identifier, wherein each of the plurality of identifiers corresponds to one combination of settings out of the plurality of combinations of settings, wherein determining the identifier comprises forming a character string by concatenating respective sub-identifiers corresponding to respective operating parameters in a predetermined order, or outputting the identifier as data representative of the character string.
Perscheid teaches determining from the combination of settings, an identifier, wherein the identifier is one identifier out of a plurality of identifiers, wherein each of the plurality of identifiers corresponds to one combination of settings out of the plurality of combinations of settings, wherein determining the identifier comprises forming a character string corresponding to respective operating parameters; and outputting the identifier as data representative of the character string (Another section of information transmitted by QR code 42, 46 is programming information for the hearing device 10. For example, the data (not including the English language portions) of a file known as a “PGM” file is used for hearing aids from IntriCon Corporation, assignee of the present invention, can be sent in a 528 byte section of the QR code 42, 46. When included in the QR code 42 from the patient's smartphone 40, the programming information is usage information, telling the audiologist the current or previous DSP parameter settings for the hearing aid 10. See at least [0024]. Examiner’s note: the programming information maps to the character string).
Casse and Walker suggest a respiratory device which is controlled by a set of operating parameters and which uses a QR code to provide operation information of the respiratory device to a user terminal, upon which the claimed devices determination of a QR code based on the operating parameters of the respiratory device can be seen as an improvement. However, Perscheid demonstrates that the prior art already knew of generating a QR code based on the operating parameters of a medical device and using that QR code to transfer information to a user terminal for review. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Perscheid to the system of Casse and Walker so that Casse and Walker’s displayed QR code would include operating parameter information. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Perscheid would have resulted in an improved system which would allow a user with a local terminal to determine the operating parameters of the respiratory device. As such, the application of Perscheid, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Casse and the teachings of Walker and Perscheid.
Further, Casse and Persheid do not expressly disclose determining the identifier comprises forming a character string by concatenating respective sub-identifiers corresponding to respective operating parameters in a predetermined order.
Sareshwala teaches determining an identifier comprises forming a character string by concatenating respective sub-identifiers corresponding to respective operating parameters in a predetermined order (The system obtains the values from the transport layer packets for two or more of the parameters (306). The system generates a unique identifier for the client device using the extracted values (308). In some implementations, the system concatenates the extracted values in a particular parameter order to generate a string of values. The string can then be input to a cryptographic hash function to generate a particular cryptographic hash value. This cryptographic hash value can be used as a unique identifier for the source device. The particular selected parameters and number of parameters used can reduce a likelihood of hash collisions. Alternatively, the string of parameter values can be used as the identifier without hashing or by applying another function to the string. Regardless of the technique, the string of parameters is ordered the same each time so that the same identifier can be generated for subsequent requests of a particular source device. See at least Column 6, Line 64 through Column 7 Line 13).
Casse, Walker, and Persheid suggests a system which generates an identifier specifying operating parameters of a device, upon which the claimed invention’s use of an identifier generated by concatenating operating parameters in a set order. However, Sareshwala demonstrates that the prior art already knew of generating identifiers by concatenating operating parameters in a set order. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Sareshwala to the system of Casse, Walker, and Persheid to produce a concatenated set of operating parameters to be output as configuration information. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that concatenating the parameters in a fixed order would exclude syntactic programming elements, thus producing an identifier that could be represented in fewer bytes. As such, the application of Sareshwala, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Casse and the teachings of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala.
Regarding Claim 27: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Perscheid teaches wherein the combination of settings corresponding to each of the plurality of identifiers is unique to each identifier (Another section of information transmitted by QR code 42, 46 is programming information for the hearing device 10. For example, the data (not including the English language portions) of a file known as a “PGM” file is used for hearing aids from IntriCon Corporation, assignee of the present invention, can be sent in a 528 byte section of the QR code 42, 46. When included in the QR code 42 from the patient's smartphone 40, the programming information is usage information, telling the audiologist the current or previous DSP parameter settings for the hearing aid 10. See at least [0024]). The motivation to combine Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala is the same as explained under claim 26 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 28: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse further discloses wherein the identifier is output as data representative of a character string (the controller 22 is configured via a program or otherwise to take the captured information and encode it into the two-dimensional barcode 19 for display on the medical apparatus display 17. The two-dimensional (2D) barcode 17 encodes … b) appended data that represents the (medical) data captured by the controller from the medical apparatus. The two dimensional barcode 19 is used to assist transfer of the medical data on the apparatus 10 to a computer system 30 (see FIG. 3) for storage, processing and distribution for review/display. See at least [0051]).
Regarding Claim 29: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse further discloses wherein the identifier is output to a display of the respiratory device (The two-dimensional barcode 19 is then displayed on the display 17 of the medical apparatus 10 by the controller 12, step 51. See at least [0057] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 30: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse further discloses wherein the identifier is output as optical data representative of an optically machine-readable code (The two-dimensional barcode can take any form known to those skilled in the art and can be generated using any suitable algorithm or other process. One such example of a two-dimensional barcode is a QR code, but this is not the only option. See at least [0052]).
Regarding Claim 33: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Walker teaches wherein the plurality of operating parameters comprise parameters relating to any one or more of: a patient receiving respiratory therapy; the respiratory device; a peripheral device used in conjunction with the respiratory device; delivery of respiratory therapy; breathable gas delivered by the respiratory device; one or more alarm conditions; and humidification (Device configuration settings (for example pressure set points, operating modes i.e., AUTO or CPAP, humidity set points). See at least [0035]). The motivation to combine Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala is the same as explained under claim 26 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 45: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse further discloses a respiratory device comprising: a flow generating for generating a flow of air for delivery to a patient’s airways; a processor; and a housing containing the flow generator and the processor (The CPAP apparatus 10 can be known to those skilled in the art and comprises a housing 11 with an internal blower 12 (shown in dotted schematic form) for providing pressurised air to a patient 15 via a conduit 13 and a patient interface 14. See at least [0050]. Also: The apparatus can be controlled by a controller 22, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller or similar, that receives input via the user input interface 18, operates the apparatus and is configured to provide output on the user output 17, including the display. The controller can have internal memory and/or also access external memory. The controller can also receive input from the sensors 20, 21 and record, process, store and collate the information for transfer, storing, reporting and review purposes. See at least [0051]. Also: See Fig. 1).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casse et al. (US 2015/0302159 A1) in view of Casse et al. (US 2019/0240433 A1) [hereinafter cited as “Walker”], Perscheid (US 2020/0120430 A1), and Sareshwala et al. (US 11102239 B1), and further in view of Koller et al. (US 8463239 B1).
Regarding Claim 31: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse does not appear to disclose wherein the identifier is output as acoustic data representative of a plurality of acoustic tones. However, Koller teaches acoustic data representative of a plurality of acoustic tones (Although a graphical representation, such as a barcode, has been discussed herein to transfer authorization information, it should be understood that other representations could be employed. These other representations could include video representations, audio representations, vibration representations, or other representations which user device 310 could receive and digitize to subsequently extract authorization included therein. See at least Column 9, Lines 23-30).
Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala suggest a system which outputs respiratory device configuration parameters using a QR code, which differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of Casse’s QR code for audio data. However, Koller demonstrates that the prior art knew of transmitting data that barcodes could be substituted with audio data. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially substituted Koller’s audio data into the system of Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a substitution would have predictably resulted in a system which would provide the configuration of a respiratory device based on audio data. As such, the identified substitution, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Casse, and the teachings of Walker, Perscheid, Sareshwala, and Koller.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casse et al. (US 2015/0302159 A1) in view of Casse et al. (US 2019/0240433 A1) [hereinafter cited as “Walker”], Perscheid (US 2020/0120430 A1), and Sareshwala et al. (US 11102239 B1), and further in view of Schneider (US 2015/0371005 A1).
Regarding Claim 32: Casse in view of Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala makes obvious the above limitations. Casse does not appear to disclose wherein the step of determining the identifier from the received combination of settings comprises identifying the identifier corresponding to the received combination of settings in a data array, the data array storing each of the plurality of identifiers and the corresponding combination of settings out of the plurality of combination of settings in relation to each other
However, Schneider teaches wherein the step of determining the identifier from the received combination of settings comprises identifying the identifier corresponding to the received combination of settings in a data array, the data array storing each of the plurality of identifiers and the corresponding combination of settings out of the plurality of combination of settings in relation to each other (given therapy description, one of a plurality of predeterminable second codes may be generatable in the generating step. That is, a common therapy description (e.g., to be administered to different patients, at different times, etc.) may result in the generation of different predeterminable second codes. As such, each of the plurality of predeterminable second codes may be different. See at least [0018]. Also: the one of the plurality of predeterminable second codes may be stored in corresponding relation to the patient. See at least [0019]. Also: the code may indicate a portion of a pre-stored therapy data set that may be accessed based on the code that is entered. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the code may include an indication of a portion of a master drug library (MDL) stored at or accessed by the patient care device 140. In this regard, the code may be used to locate an appropriate entry in the MDL that may include one or more configuration data components for use in configuring the patient care device 140. See at least [0094]).
Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala suggests techniques for transmitting the configuration of a respiratory device based on a code, upon which the claimed invention’s use of a code lookup can be seen as an improvement. However Schneider demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using stored code information to determine a configuration code. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Schneider to the system of Casse, Walker, Perscheid, and Sareshwala. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Schneider would have resulted in a system using a less computationally intensive code interpretation technique. As such, the application of Schneider, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Casse, and the teachings of Walker, Perscheid, Sareshwala, and Schneider.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments Regarding 103 Rejection(s) of claim(s) 26-30, 33, and 45:
The combination of Casse, Walker, and Perscheid … is silent with respect to determining an identifier by “forming a character string by concatenating respective sub-identifiers corresponding to respective operating parameters in a predetermined order.”
Casse also fails to teach or suggest “outputting the identifier from the respiratory device as data representative of the character string.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Applicant’s argument is rendered moot by the amendment of claim(s) 1.
Examiner notes that Casse is understood to teach outputting the identifier “as data representative of the character string.” Casse teaches programming information which reads on the character string, which is subsequently included in a presented QR code. Casse’s QR code is thus an output identifier representative of the character string.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
LeBlanc et al. (US 2016/0369616 A1) describes concatenating descriptive parameters to “facilitate efficiency” [0052].
Wang et al. (US 2017/0223613 A1) describes concatenating configuration information into a string [0034].
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-01-24
Prosecution Insights