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. Priority Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to PCT/US2021/033590 filed May 21, 2021; and to U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/051,448 filed July 14, 2020. Status of Claims This Office Action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on January 13, 2023 . As directed by the amendment: claims 3-5, 7, 10, and 13-18 have been amended; and claims 20-41 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-19 are presently pending in this application. Drawings Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem , and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). Claim Interpretation Claim 6 recites “wherein the fixed duration of time is for a period of between about 30 seconds to about 5 minutes.”, ln 1-2 . The term “about” in has been interpreted as modifying the range by ± 5%. Thus, f or the purpose of this Office action the limitation “ a bout 30 seconds to about 5 minutes” has been interpreted as 28.5 seconds to 5.25 minutes . Similar interpretation has been applied to claims 9, 14 , and 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C . 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0310050) in view of Harral et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,199,423; hereinafter: “ Harral ”). Regarding Claim 1, Osorio discloses a system for prevention of sudden death, said system comprising: a wearable seizure detection device (¶¶ 0086, 0090, 0092 , 0093 ; Examiner notes: Osorio discloses “ methods and apparatus capable of implementing embodiments of the present invention are described below. In the context of this description, a medical device or medical system may be referred to as an implantable medical device and/or an implantable medical device/system (IMD). It is contemplated that such a device and/or system may be implantable or non-implantable/non-implanted in various embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. That is, when an implantable medical device/system (IMD) is described in one or more embodiments, it is also contemplated that a corresponding non-implanted or non-implantable may be used in one or more alternate embodiments.” ¶ 0092 ); a base unit (100; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0092, 0093) ; and a computer (110; Fig. 1) , said computer configured to receive input from said seizure detection device ( ¶¶ 0009, 0117, 0146, 0148, 0156 ) and trigger said base unit to release oxygen under a condition effective to enrich an oxygen level and prevent sudden death when said input indicates a seizure (¶¶ 0009, 0117, 0146, 0148, 0156 ) . Osorio does not explicitly disclose enriching an environmental oxygen level . Harral is in the field of oxygen enrichment (Abstract), and teaches enriching an environmental oxygen level ( system and apparatus for generating and supplying oxygen-rich gas, col. 2, lines 56-58; the term “ oxygen-rich gas ” mean ing gas comprising at least 90% oxygen, col. 3, lines 34-36 ; a system for producing oxygen-rich gas for breathing, col. 6, lines 4-5; venting to ambient oxygen-rich gas delivered by the concentrator means, col. 3, lines 41-49, claims 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system for prevention of sudden death of Osorio to include the enriching an environmental oxygen level as taught by Harral for the purpose of provide the desired therapeutic effect to a moving patient who is unencumbered by breathing tubes or other apparatus . Regarding Claim 3, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system wherein said condition is effective to enrich an environmental oxygen level to at least 50% (See Harral : system and apparatus for generating and supplying oxygen-rich gas, col. 2, lines 56-58; the term “ oxygen-rich gas ” mean ing gas comprising at least 90% oxygen, col. 3, lines 34-36 ) . Regarding Claim 13, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system wherein said base unit further comprises an oxygen sensor ( See Osorio: 112, 121; Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0082, 0120, 0121, 0126; Examiner notes: Osorio discloses blood oxygen saturation is measured. ) . Regarding Claim 16, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system wherein at least one of said input and said trigger is transmitted wirelessly ( See Osorio: 0096, 0112, 0121) . Regarding Claim 17, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system further comprising: a remote control ( See Osorio: 192; Fig. 3) , said remote control capable of providing on demand oxygen release ( See Osorio: ¶¶ 0114, 0117, 124) . Regarding Claim 18, the modified device of Osorio discloses a method of preventing sudden death, comprising: enriching an environmental oxygen level for a sleeping subject ( See Osorio: ¶¶ 0041, 0057, 0078, 0104, 0106, 0114, 0174) using the system of claim 1, shown above, wherein the subject has a seizure disorder ( See Osorio: ¶¶ 0009, 0117, 0146, 0148, 0156) . Regarding Claim 19, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system wherein the seizure disorder is selected from the group consisting of epilepsy and any neurological or other medical condition that is associated with generalized seizures, absence seizures, tonic- clonic seizures, focal seizures, simple focal seizures, complex focal seizures, and secondary generalized seizures ( See Osorio: Abstract; ¶¶ 0009, 0039, 0052, 0117, 0146, 0148, 0156) . Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio in view of Har r al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0326171; hereinafter: “Stewart”). Regarding Claim 2, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein oxygen is released within about 30 seconds after a seizure is detected by said seizure detection device. Stewart is in the field of seizure detection and treatment ( a bstract; ¶ 0003) and teaches wherein oxygen is released within about 30 seconds after a seizure is detected by said seizure detection device ( ¶¶ 0049, 0057, 0076; Examiner notes Stewart discloses: rapid oxygen desaturation during seizure-induced laryngospasm. The short time-course for hypoxic changes in ECG (within tens of seconds), indicates the extremely short, timeframe for intervention. In the top panel, an episode of obstructive apnea is shown as evidenced by the absence of airflow, (¶ 0049) ; provides a simple emergency intervention based on inflation of the lungs with a modest volume of oxygen ... to protect a human or animal from rapid oxygen desaturation, to restore oxygen saturation levels to safe levels ... The ability to activate this intervention within seconds is critical for saving lives, ( ¶ 0057 ) ; In the case of seizure-induced laryngospasm that can be fatal, support needs to last several minutes before the obstruction spontaneously resolves, ( ¶ 0076) .] for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( ¶ 0057 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the oxygen being released within about 30 seconds after a seizure is detected by said seizure detection device as taught by Stewart for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( See Stewart: ¶ 0057 ) . Regarding Claim 4, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein oxygen is released under sustained conditions. Stewart is in the field of seizure detection and treatment ( a bstract; ¶ 0003) and teaches wherein oxygen is released rapidly after a seizure is detected by said seizure detection device ( ¶¶ 0049, 0057, 0076) and wherein oxygen is released under sustained conditions (¶ 0076) for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( ¶ 0057 ) and continuous administration of oxygen for several minutes is needed to resolve the issue and prevent fatality (¶ 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the oxygen being released under sustained conditions as taught by Stewart for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( See Stewart: ¶ 0057 ) and continuous administration of oxygen for several minutes is needed to resolve the issue and prevent fatality (See Stewart: ¶ 0076) . Regarding Claim 5, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above . The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein oxygen is released for a fixed duration of time. Stewart is in the field of seizure detection and treatment ( a bstract; ¶ 0003) and teaches wherein oxygen is released rapidly after a seizure is detected by said seizure detection device ( ¶¶ 0049, 0057, 0076) and wherein oxygen is for a fixed duration of time (¶ 0076) for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( ¶ 0057 ) and continuous administration of oxygen for several minutes is needed to resolve the issue and prevent fatality (¶ 0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the oxygen being released for a fixed duration of time as taught by Stewart for the purpose of activat ing the administration of oxygen within seconds is critical for saving lives ( See Stewart: ¶ 0057 ) and continuous administration of oxygen for several minutes is needed to resolve the issue and prevent fatality (See Stewart: ¶ 0076). Regarding Claim 6, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the fixed duration of time is for a period of between about 30 seconds to about 5 minutes (See Stewart: ¶ 0076) . Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio in view of Harral as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sward et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0145128; hereinafter: “Sward”) . Regarding Claim s 7-8, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein the base unit further comprises: an oxygen tank; a gas regulator; an electronic valve; a flow meter; and a nozzle and wherein said nozzle is attached to said base unit by a flexible tubing . Sward teaches a base unit (100; Fig. 1, 3) comprises: an oxygen tank (130; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0034, 0035) ; a gas regulator (174, 190; Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0144, 0151) ; an electronic valve (¶ 0069) ; a flow meter (140, 150; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0034 - 0036) ; and a nozzle ( 111; Fig. 18; ¶ 0143 ); and wherein said nozzle is attached to said base unit by a flexible tubing (121; Fig. 4 , 18 ; ¶ 0051 , 0143 ) for the purpose of measur ing the flow rate of oxygen gas to the user and controlling the flow or oxygen gas to the user (¶¶ 0034, 0035, 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the base unit comprising : the oxygen tank; the gas regulator; the electronic valve; the flow meter; and the nozzle attached to said base unit by the flexible tubing as taught by Sward for the purpose of measur ing the flow rate of oxygen gas to the user and controlling the flow or oxygen gas to the user (¶¶ 0034, 0035, 0039) . Regarding Claim 9, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 8, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein said flexible tubing has a length of more than about 1 foot. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible tubing as having a length of more than about 1 foot in the modified device of Osorio because Applicant has not disclosed that forming the flexible tubing as having a length of more than about 1 foot provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, the instant specification discloses a plurality of flexible tubing lengths (¶ 0054 ). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the flexible tube of the modified device of Osorio discloses the system , and Applicant’s flexible tube , to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of providing oxygen to the user . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the modified device of Osorio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired function of providing oxygen to the user and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the modified device of Osorio . Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio in view of Harral as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blosser (U.S. Pat. No. 2,389,293) . Regarding Claim 10, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein said base unit further comprises an attachment device capable of providing a concentrated environmental oxygen level surrounding said attachment device . Blosser teachers base unit (38, 44, 45; Fig. 2) comprises an attachment device (11; Fig. 1-2) capable of providing a concentrated environmental oxygen level surrounding said attachment device (Pg. 1, left col, ln 48 to Pg. 1, right col, ln 30; Pg. 3, left col, ln 6-14; Pg. 3, left col, ln 74 to Pg. 3, right col, ln 18) for the purpose of receiving the entire head of the user to provide oxygen (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, left col, ln 48 to Pg. 1, right col, ln 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the base unit further compris ing the attachment device capable of providing the concentrated environmental oxygen level surrounding said attachment device as taught by Blosser for the purpose of receiving the entire head of the user to provide oxygen (See Blosser: Fig. 2; Pg. 1, left col, ln 48 to Pg. 1, right col, ln 30) . Regarding Claim 11, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system wherein said attachment device is a canopy (See Blosser: Fig. 2; Pg. 1, left col, ln 22-24) . Regarding Claim 12, the modified device of Osorio discloses the system w herein said attachment device is a isosceles trapezoid canopy (See Blosser: Fig. 2; Pg. 1, right col, ln 8-16) . The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein said attachment device is a conical canopy . Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the attachment device as a conical canopy in the modified device of Osorio discloses the system because Applicant has not disclosed that the attachment device being a conical canopy provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification recites the attachment device being a conical canopy as exemplary (¶ 0055) . One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the attachment device being the isosceles trapezoid canopy of the modified device of Osorio discloses the system , and Applicant’s attachment device being formed as conical canopy , to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of concentrating oxygen within the environment of the attachment device . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the modified device of Osorio discloses the system to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired concentrating of oxygen within the environment of the attachment device and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the modified device of Osorio discloses the system . Claim(s) 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osorio in view of Harral as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singhal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 200 6/0201504 ; hereinafter: “ Singhal ”). Regarding Claim s 14 -15 the modified device of Osorio discloses the system of claim 1, shown above. The modified device of Osorio does not specifically disclose the system wherein oxygen is released at a flow of between about 1 and about 250 standard cubic feet per minute and at a pressure of between about 1 psi and about 100 psi . Singhal teaches releas ing oxygen at a flow of between about 1 and about 250 standard cubic feet per minute [¶¶ 0008, 0012, 0034; Examiner notes: Due to the recitation of “about” the flow rate range has been interpreted as 0.95 to 262.5 standard cubic feet per minute (i.e. 26.9 to 7433.2 liters per minute), see above . Singhal discloses the flow rate of oxygen as 25 to 60 liter per minute .] and a pressure of between about 1 psi and about 100 psi (¶¶ 0007-0009, 0012, 0034 ; Examiner notes: Due to the recitation of “about” the pressure range has been interpreted as 0.95 to 105 psi, see above. Singhal discloses the pressure of the flow of oxygen as 1-1.5 atmospheres, i.e. 14.7 to 22 psi.] ) for the purpose of t reat ing a patient with a known or suspected condition associated with ischemia, e.g., a seizure (¶¶ 0023, 0034) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Osorio to include the oxygen being released at the flow rate of between about 1 and about 250 standard cubic feet per minute and at the pressure of between about 1 psi and about 100 psi as taught by Singhal for the purpose of t reat ing a patient with a known or suspected condition associated with ischemia, e.g., a seizure (See Singhal: ¶¶ 0023, 0034) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELLIOT S RUDDIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7634 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F usually 9-7 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kendra Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9034 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ELLIOT S RUDDIE/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785