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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 36-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06 Nov 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06 Nov 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited reference of Fu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0064894) does not teach a centrifugal fan (Pg. 9). This is not found persuasive because upon review of the instant specification applicant has already indicated therein that the use of a centrifugal fan is known in the respiratory art (¶0003 citing of DE 200 16 769 U1, which was also cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 21 Apr 2023). Upon review Examiner concurs with applicant’s assertion that Fu fails to teach a centrifugal fan. However, applicant’s own specification indicates clearly the prior known use of a centrifugal fan in the respiratory art and thus the inventions of claims 18 and 36 still lack a shared special technical feature, and thus the claims lack unity of invention a posteriori. (Note the presently cited Elmer et al. – U.S. Pub. 2002/0057967 as the U.S. counterpart to applicant’s citation of DE 200 16 769 U1.)
Applicant expresses a desire for amended claims 39 and 40 to be examined together with the elected Group I (Pg. 9). However, those two claims depend from claim 36 and thus fall into Group II of the restriction/election requirement. Since applicant has elected Group I and both 1) Group I and Group II still lack unity of invention and 2) amended claims 39 and 40 depend from non-elected Group II, claims 39 and 40 are herein withdrawn along with the other claims of Group II. Applicant may wish to consider amending claim 36 to depend from a claim in Group I or to amend claim 36 in correspondence to the requirements of claim 18 in an effort to show unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The amendment filed 23 Feb 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2021/070158 and of the foreign patent application DE Patent Application No. 10 2020 119 085.9 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 19 Jul 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 23 Feb 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0056 discusses “double arrow B” which should instead be “double arrow A” (see Fig. 4)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18-35 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, Ln. 18 includes a numeral for the filter device while no other structure in the claim has been recited with a numeral. The numeral should be removed for consistency with the remainder of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/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 27 recites the limitation “the temperature control device is adapted for controlling the temperature of the second respiration line.” The limitation “temperature control device” has been recited in claim 26 as a further defining of the respiration air conditioning device which was earlier recited in claim 24 as “coupled to the second end of the first respiration line.” The second end of the first respiration line is at a farthest upstream position from the centrifugal fan while the second respiration line of the instant claim is downstream of the centrifugal fan. The originally filed application fails to describe any structure suitable for reading on the temperature control device of the instant claim which would meet the overall requirements of the instant claim by being coupled to the second end of the first respiration line (i.e. farthest upstream of the centrifugal fan) while also controlling heating of the second respiration line (i.e. downstream of the centrifugal fan). There is thus lack of sufficient written description in the application as originally filed for the overall requirements of the instant claim.
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(s) 31-32 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the first control circuit” in Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the first control loop,” assuming proper reference to claim 30.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the second control circuit” in Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the second control loop,” assuming proper reference to claim 33.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control device” in claim 18, “respiration air conditioning device” in claim 24, and “temperature control device” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the “control device” is best understood from the specification as at least: control device 50 comprising a motor controller 51 and a control circuit 52 (¶0052).
The corresponding structure for the “respiration air conditioning device” is best understood from the specification as at least: a resistance heating element and/or a Peltier element, a humidifier, or an oxygen bottle (¶0058).
The corresponding structure for the “temperature control device” is best understood from the specification as at least: a resistance heating element and/or a Peltier element (¶0029).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 18-19, 22-23 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remmers et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0216740) in view of Elmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0057967) and further in view of Emerson (U.S. Pub. 2005/0039749).
Regarding claim 18, Remmers discloses a ventilation apparatus (Fig. 2; ¶0039) which is adapted for non-invasive ventilating of a person (Fig. 2), comprising: a fan (Fig. 2 #20; ¶0039) having an inlet opening (Fig. 2 upstream end of #20) and an outlet opening (Fig. 2 downstream end of #20), the centrifugal fan being adapted to receive ventilation air at the inlet opening and to provide the ventilation air at an adjustable ventilation pressure at the outlet opening (¶0049), a first respiration line (Fig. 2 upstream of #20) having a first end connected to the inlet opening of the centrifugal fan, and having a second end arranged for receiving inhalation air, a second respiration line (Fig. 2 between #20 and #24) having a first end connected to the outlet opening of the fan, and having a second end adapted for coupling a ventilation mask (Fig. 2 #24; ¶0039), the second respiration line being provided with a sensor device (Fig. 2 #32; ¶0041), by means of which at least one flow parameter in the second respiration line can be measured, and a control device (Fig. 2 #34; ¶0041) adapted for controlling the fan in dependency on at least one output signal of the sensor device (¶¶0049, 0065), wherein the fan and the second respiration line form a continuous bidirectional flow path (Fig. 2 note double arrow in #22; ¶¶0049, 0065 – retrograde flow), the adjustable ventilation pressure at the outlet opening of the fan comprising an inhalation pressure or an exhalation pressure which is equal to or less than the inhalation pressure (¶¶0049, 0065). It is noted that only one portion of the “or” clause in Ln. 15-17 is required for reading on the claim. The language “the centrifugal fan and the second respiration line form a continuous bidirectional flow path” is understood to imply that an inhalation flow is delivered in a first direction from the centrifugal fan to a patient through the second respiration line and that an exhalation flow is able to flow in an opposite, second direction through the same second respiration line fully into the centrifugal fan. The claim thus generally precludes venting of an exhalation flow prior to returning to the centrifugal fan. See also specifically Fig. 5 of Remmers. It is noted that the “sensor device” is not interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a sensor is a commonly identifiable structure.
Remmers is silent as to whether the fan is a centrifugal fan. Remmers fails to disclose the second respiration line is provided with a filter device which is arranged for air flow filtering.
Elmer teaches a radial blower for use in a breathing apparatus for treating sleep apnea (¶¶0002-0004). Elmer teaches radial blowers are known for use in the respiratory arts (¶0004) and that they can beneficially provide a low noise level to not interfere with patient sleep (¶0028).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Remmers the fan is a centrifugal fan based upon the known use of radial blowers as a specific form of blower used in the respiratory arts which can beneficially provide a low noise level to not interfere with patient sleep in view of Elmer.
Emerson teaches a respiratory system (Fig. 1) including bidirectional flow along a downstream respiration line (Fig. 1 between #12 and #18; ¶0023) and a filter device (Fig. 1 #24; ¶0022) provided in the downstream respiration line for air flow filtering. Emerson teaches a downstream filter as providing the benefit of filtering bacteria which might be transferred from a patient to a blower (¶0022; Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Remmers the second respiration line is provided with a filter device which is arranged for air flow filtering in order to provide the benefit of filtering bacteria which might be transferred from a patient to the fan in view of Emerson.
Regarding claim 19, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the flow path between the second end of the second respiration line and the inlet opening of the centrifugal fan is free of valves (Fig. 2). The valve 28 in Fig. 2 is not located specifically between the second end of the second respiration line and the inlet opening of the centrifugal fan.
Regarding claim 22, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the second end of the first respiration line opens into surroundings of the ventilation apparatus (¶0041 – open to room air).
Regarding claim 23, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above but fails to explicitly teach the second end of the first respiration line is adapted for coupling to a respiration air reservoir.
However, the claim has no concern for any particular form of coupling or any particular type of respiration air reservoir and is thus quite broad in scope. Under a first consideration the first respiration line can be read as fluidly coupled to the room in which it is used, with the room readable as the claimed respiration air reservoir. Under a second consideration one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an obvious design choice alternative to provide a physical gas source to supply gas to the centrifugal fan in place of a room air supply. The instant claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over the modified Remmers.
Regarding claim 28, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above but fails to explicitly teach having at least one of the features: the filter device comprises a HEPA filter, and the filter device comprises a plug connection to at least one of the centrifugal fan and the second respiration line.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Fig. 1 of Emerson would have obviously expected the filter 24 to be integrated into conduit 14 (e.g. corresponding to the claimed second respiration line) using a plug connection as that is a common form of filter connection in the art. The instant claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over the modified Remmers.
Regarding claim 29, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above but fails to explicitly teach having at least one of the features: the control device is provided with an interface for receiving an output signal of an oxygen saturation sensor, the control device is arranged directly adjoining the centrifugal fan, and the control device is adapted for outputting an alarm signal in the event of at least one of a malfunction of the ventilation apparatus and a critical state of the ventilated person being identified.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious that computer 34 in Remmers can be placed at various locations as the computer 34 will perform its same intended function regardless of location (e.g. Figs. 2A & 5). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art of sleep apnea treatment devices would have considered it prima facie obvious that blowers are commonly provided in a same housing with control electronics.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would thus have considered it prima facie obvious to have located computer 34 against blower 20 since they already communicate with each other and based upon the common expectation in the art of provided blower and control electronics within a common housing.
Regarding claim 30, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the control device is adapted for controlling the centrifugal fan using a first control loop (Fig. 14; ¶¶0071-0076), by means of which the ventilation pressure at the outlet opening of the centrifugal fan can be adjusted.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remmers et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0216740) in view of Elmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0057967) and further in view of Emerson (U.S. Pub. 2005/0039749) and further in view of Wing et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0120067).
Regarding claim 24, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above but fails to teach a respiration air conditioning device which is coupled to the second end of the first respiration line.
Wing teaches a respiratory system (Fig. 4e; ¶¶0110-0111) including a blower (Fig. 4e-4f #4104; ¶0111) which can receive oxygen from an oxygen source (Fig. 4e #4045; ¶0111). Wing teaches an oxygen source as providing the benefit of allowing a desired gas mixture of air and oxygen to be delivered to a patient (¶¶0111-0112).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Remmers a respiration air conditioning device which is coupled to the second end of the first respiration line in order to provide the benefit of allowing a desired gas mixture of air and oxygen to be delivered to a patient in view of Wing.
Regarding claim 25, Remmers teaches the invention as modified above and Wing as incorporated therein further teaches the respiration air conditioning device is adapted for adjusting at least one of the parameters moisture, temperature and oxygen content (¶¶0111-0112) of the inhalation air. Only one portion of the “at least one of” clause is required for reading on the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 20-21, 26 and 33 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 31-32 and 34-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, Remmers fails to teach or suggest the first respiration line includes a valve device arranged between the inlet opening of the centrifugal fan and the second end of the first respiration line and arranged as an expiration exit for the outlet of exhalation air. Remmers includes a variety of embodiments which include a valved exit for exhalation air (e.g. Figs. 2, 4A-7, 18A & 19). However, in none of those embodiments is there consideration of a valve upstream of the blower which would be used for release of exhalation air.
It is noted that the “valve device” is not interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a sensor is a commonly identifiable structure.
Note is made of the discussion in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 18 above of the particular wording in that claim about a bidirectional flow path which meaningfully limits the prior art available against that claim. For example, the above cited Emerson (U.S. Pub. 2005/0039749) is not itself directly readable on claim 18 as it does not provide bidirectional flow into its blower (Fig. 5 has two separate paths interacting with blower 30 which cannot be read together as the singular “second respiration line”). It is further noted that claim 18 specifically recites a centrifugal fan which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize as distinguishable from an axial fan.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 26, Remmers fails to teach or suggest the respiration air conditioning device comprises a temperature control device which is adapted for controlling the temperature of the ventilation apparatus. It is noted that claim 24 has specifically recited the respiration air conditioning device as coupled to the second end of the first respiration line. Thus, the temperature control device of the instant claim must also be coupled to the second end of the first respiration line. There is no suggestion in Remmers of providing heating to the gas flow upstream of the blower.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 31, Remmers fails to teach or suggest the control device is adapted for controlling the centrifugal fan using a third control loop, by means of which target variables of the first control loop are adjustable in such a way that at least one of the parameters of tidal volume and minute volume of the ventilation can be matched to predetermined volume reference variables of the tidal volume or of the minute volume. Remmers fails to teach or suggest any consideration of an additional control loop to adjust target variables of the first control loop, for the purpose of controlling particular output ventilation variables. It is noted that the recitation of “third control loop” before a second control loop is acceptable based upon how the terminology is being used in consistency with the instant specification.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 33, Remmers fails to teach or suggest the control device is adapted for controlling the centrifugal fan using a second control loop, by means of which at least one of the following can be adjusted: a frequency of inhalation phases, in which the inhalation pressure is established at the outlet opening of the centrifugal fan, and a duty cycle of the duration of the inhalation phases relative to the duration of exhalation phases, in which the exhalation pressure is established at the outlet opening of the centrifugal fan. Remmers fails to teach or suggest control of the particular parameters recited by the instant claim (i.e. frequency of inhalation phases or duty cycle of the duration of the inhalation phases relative to the duration of exhalation phases). Remmers generally teaches a device intended for use in the treatment of sleep apnea (e.g. Abstract) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that type of device to control the particular parameters recited by the instant claim since sleep apnea treatment is generally performed on a patient in their home while the measures recited by the instant claim are more critical care respiratory parameters.
It is noted that the recitation of “second control loop” before a first control loop is acceptable based upon how the terminology is being used in consistency with the instant specification.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785