DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 01/22/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 16 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 16-35 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:
securing device in claim 17 line 3 is interpreted as a catch formation such as a catch lug, catch recess, or catch edge or the like according to specification paragraph [0017] of the PGPUB of the application (Hepting US 2023/0285700). A “securing device” in claim 19 lines 3 and 5 is not being interpreted under 112f because “the screw drive is also the securing device” in lines 5-6 provides adequate structure.
drive element in claim 18 line 3, claim 21 lines 2 and 4, claim 22 lines 1 and 4, claim 23 line 2, claim 24 line 1, claim 25 line 4, and claim 26 line 4 is interpreted as a pull and/or push element for example a finger, hand grip formation, finger ring, draw rod, or the like according to paragraph [0019] of the PGPUB. The “drive element” in claim 19 line 4 is not being interpreted under 112f because “the drive element comprises a self-locking screw drive” in lines 4-5 provides adequate structure.
pressure modification device in claim 1 lines 6 and 8 and claim 32 line 3 is interpreted as a fan or the like according to paragraph [0010] of the PGPUB.
actuation formation in claim 21 line 2, claim 23 line 2, and claim 25 lines 4-5 is being interpreted as a .
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.
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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 16-18, 20-30, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dantanarayana et al. (US 2023/0158266) in view of Bertinetti et al. (US 2016/0158478).
Regarding claim 16, Dantanarayana discloses a ventilator device (fig. 5A, respiratory pressure therapy device 4000) for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients, comprising:
- a device housing (fig. 5A, external housing 4010),
- a functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing in an operational position (fig. 5A, pneumatic block 4020 which includes pressure generator 4140), which exhibits at least a section of a respiratory gas line ([0331] states that pneumatic block 4020 includes an outlet which is part of an air circuit), a pressure modification device for modifying a respiratory gas pressure in the respiratory gas line ([0192] states that pneumatic block includes a pressure generator) as functional units of the functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing (fig. 5B shows a fully assembled device 4000 with units within housing 4010), and
- An input/output device arranged at the device housing in an arrangement position (fig. 5A, circuit board assembly 4202 includes, fig. 5E, input devices 4220 and output devices 4290 according to [0195]), accessible from outside the device housing for its operation, for the input of data and/or control commands into a control device and/or for the output of data and information ([0223 states that input devices 4220 can be used to send signals to the central controller 4230), where the input/output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission through an aperture in the device housing (fig. 5A, shows openings in housing 4010 which allows for the input/output devices). Dantanarayana does not expressly disclose that the embodiment of the device (fig. 5A) includes a control device on the functional assembly (fig. 5A, pneumatic block 4020).
However, Dantanarayana teaches of another embodiment that includes an additional circuit board on the functional assembly (fig. 7, circuit board 7600 mounted on pneumatic block 7100, [0338] states circuit board can include the same components as circuit board 4202 which includes therapy device controller 4240, and [0195] states that the device 4000 in fig. 5A can include more than one circuit board 4202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a circuit board with a therapy device controller (fig. 5E, 4240) to the pneumatic block as an obvious design choice that would not impact the function of the ventilation device as there is no criticality to the location of the control device and the ventilation device would function the same in being able to intake information and provide therapy to a patient.
The modified device of Dantanarayana further reads on attachment between the input/output device (fig. 5A, circuit board assembly 4202) and the functional assembly (fig. 5A, pneumatic block 4020) as shown by overlay of the parts (fig. 5A), but is silent on the attachment between the input/output device and the functional assembly comprising a latch.
However, Bertinetti teaches of a latching formation (fig. 11, a locking mechanism comprises latches 116L on latching element 918 and keepers 116K which stay fixed together via securing shaft 926) for connecting various modules of a respiratory treatment apparatus (see fig. 1 and figs. 6A-6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connections between the input/output device and the functional assembly of Dantanarayana with the locking mechanism as taught by Bertinetti. The replacement of the existing fastening system with the locking mechanism is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result of allowing the securing of the input/output device to the functional assembly.
The modified device of Dantanarayana further reads on the input/output device comprising a latching formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, latches 116L on latching element 918) and where inside the device housing there is provided a latching counter-formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, keepers 116K), where in an operational ventilator device the latching formation is in positive-locking latching engagement with the latching counter-formation which prevents removal of the input/output device from its arrangement position in a lifting direction away from the device housing (Dantanarayana fig. 5B, when assembled, the input/output device is not removable by only lifting it away from the housing), where at least one formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation is moveable at least once from a release position along a movement path transversely to the lifting direction into a latching position (see annotated Bertinetti fig. 11 below, where the latches 116L are moveable back and forth along the movement path), where in the release position no positive-locking latching engagement exists between latching formation and latching counter-formation and the then unlatched input/output device is removable from its arrangement position in the lifting direction away from the device housing (Bertinetti fig. 13, latches 116L and keepers 116K no longer overlap allowing the removal of securing shaft 926 and subsequent removal of the latches in a lifting direction) and where in the latching position the positive-locking latching engagement is established (Bertinetti fig. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable along the movement path (see Bertinetti figs. 11-13 which show movement along a movement path for removal) is securable in the latching position by a securing device against movement out of the latching position (Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926 prevents the removal of the latches 116L and keepers 116K, see Bertinetti [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable along the movement path is movable by means of a drive element from the release position into the latching position (Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926 includes threaded portion 1030 which secures with threaded aperture 1034 to secure the latching element, see [0105]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable along the movement path is movable reversibly between release position and latching position (see Bertinetti figs. 11-13 which show movement along a movement path for removal).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 18 and further reads on at least one actuation formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, the head of securing shaft 926) of the drive element at least in the release position of the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable by means of the drive element is arranged inside the device housing (Bertinetti fig. 11, the head of securing shaft 926 is on the underside of the input/output device which is within the housing during securing of the input/output device, Dantanarayana fig. 5A, the underside of circuit board 4202 had the securing shaft which is therefore within housing 4010).
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 18 and further reads on the whole drive element, both in the release position and in the latching position, of the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable by means of the drive element is arranged inside the device housing (Bertinetti fig. 11, the securing shaft 926 is on the underside of the input/output device which is within the housing during securing of the input/output device when operating the latching formation).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 21 and further reads on at least one actuation formation of the drive element is accessible for actuation through a different aperture of the device housing than through that aperture through which the input/output device is connected with the control device for signal transmission (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 21 and further reads on the whole drive element is accessible for actuation through a different aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the second aperture allows the screwing/unscrewing of Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926) of the device housing than through that aperture through which the input/output device is connected with the control device for signal transmission (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the first aperture).
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the device housing exhibits a prism shape with a housing casing wall at a radial distance from a prism axis encircling the prism axis (Dantanarayana fig. 5A, housing 4010 creates a prism with chassis 4016) and with at least one axial, with respect of the prism axis, end-side aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the second aperture is axial with respect to the axis of housing 4010), where at least the actuation formation of the drive element is accessible for actuation through an axial end-side aperture of the at least one axial end-side aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the second aperture allows the screwing/unscrewing of Bertinetti fig. 11, the head of securing shaft 926).
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the device housing exhibits a prism shape with a housing casing wall at a radial distance from a prism axis encircling the prism axis (Dantanarayana fig. 5A, housing 4010 creates a prism with chassis 4016) and with at least one axial, with respect of the prism axis, end-side aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the second aperture is axial with respect to the axis of housing 4010), where the whole drive element is accessible for actuation through an axial end-side aperture of the at least one axial end-side aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A above, the second aperture allows the screwing/unscrewing of Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926).
Regarding claim 27, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on at least one surface out of an abutment surface of the latching formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, latch 116L) and an abutment counter-surface of the latching counter-formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, keeper 116K) which abuts against the abutment surface when a positive-locking latching engagement (Bertinetti fig. 11) is established is inclined to the movement path (inclined is interpreted to mean as being able to move along a path, see annotated Bertinetti fig. 11 above, latch 116L and keeper 116K can only move back and forth on the defined movement path) in such a way that during a movement of the at least one movable formation out of the latching formation and latching counter-formation from the release position into the latching position to establish the positive-locking latching engagement, a force effect is exerted on the input/output device in the direction towards the device housing through a sliding abutment engagement between the abutment surface and the abutment counter-surface (Bertinetti fig. 6A, latches 116L are protruding from the surface of module 106 which inherently means connection using the latches and keepers requires a force exerted towards another housing).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on both surfaces out of an abutment surface of the latching formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, latch 116L) and an abutment counter-surface of the latching counter-formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, keeper 116K) which abuts against the abutment surface when a positive-locking latching engagement is established are inclined to the movement path (inclined is interpreted to mean as being able to move along a path, see annotated Bertinetti fig. 11 above, latch 116L and keeper 116K can only move back and forth on the defined movement path) in such a way that during a movement of the at least one movable formation out of the latching formation and latching counter-formation from the release position into the latching position to establish the positive-locking latching engagement, a force effect is exerted on the input/output device in the direction towards the device housing through a sliding abutment engagement between the abutment surface and the abutment counter-surface (Bertinetti fig. 6A, latches 116L are protruding from the surface of module 106 which inherently means connection using the latches and keepers requires a force exerted towards another housing).
Regarding claim 29, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on only one formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, latches 116L and keepers 116K) is movable between the release position and the latching position (Bertinetti figs. 11-13 shows only the latches 116L moving relative to the keepers).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 29 and further reads on only the latching counter-formation is movable between the release position and the latching position (Bertinetti fig. 11, latches 116L can be instead defined as the counter formations).
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the functional arrangement (Dantanarayana fig. 5A, pneumatic block 4020) is a preassembled module consisting of at least the section of a respiratory gas line ([0331] states that pneumatic block 4020 includes an outlet which is part of an air circuit), the pressure modification device ([0192] states that pneumatic block includes a pressure generator), and the control device (Dantanarayana fig. 5E, therapy device controller 4240), which as a preassembled module is insertable into the device housing and/or is withdrawable from the latter (fig. 5A, shows the pneumatic block being configured to insert into the housing 4010 and is inherently removable).
Regarding claim 33, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the functional arrangement exhibits the latching counter-formation (Bertinetti fig. 11, keepers 116K), which is accommodated displaceably between the release position and the latching position (Bertinetti figs. 11-13 the entire formation can be in a release or latching position) at a functional unit and/or at a frame component of the functional arrangement which carries at least one functional unit (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A below, the latching counter formation can be place where the existing fastening position is on the pneumatic block 4020).
PNG
media_image3.png
674
861
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 32 and further reads on the device housing exhibits a prism shape with a housing casing wall at a radial distance from a prism axis encircling the prism axis (Dantanarayana fig. 5A, housing 4010 creates a prism with chassis 4016) and with at least one axial, with respect of the prism axis, end-side aperture (see annotated Dantanarayana fig. 5A below, the second aperture is axial with respect to the axis of housing 4010), where the functional arrangement as a component of the preassembled module exhibits a cover which with a functional arrangement introduced completely into the operational position covers an axial end-side aperture of the at least one axial end-side aperture of the device housing (Dantanarayana fig. 5A, side panel 4014 can be defined as part of the functional assembly which covers an axial end-side aperture of housing 4010).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, see the rejections to claims 33 and 34 above.
11. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dantanarayana in view of Bertinetti and Maciejewski et al. (US 2017/0082704).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 18 and further reads on the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable along the movement path (Bertinetti fig. 11, latches 116L and keepers 116K are moveable along the path shown in Bertinetti figs. 11-13) is securable in the latching position by a securing device against movement out of the latching position (Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926), where the drive element is a screw drive (Bertinetti fig. 11, securing shaft 926 has threaded portions 1030 and 1028 and can function as a screw) which is also the securing device which secures the formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation which is movable along the movement path in the latching position against movement into the release position (Bertinetti fig. 11, when the securing shaft 926 is fully screwed in, the latching formation is secured together). The modified device of Dantanarayana does not expressly disclose that the screw drive is a self-locking screw drive.
However, Maciejewski teaches of a fastening element ([0015]) that uses a self-locking screw.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the threaded portions of the securing shaft of the modified device of Dantanarayana with the self-locking screw as taught by Maciejewski for the purpose of enhancing the security of the shaft and prevent and undesired loosening (Maciejewski [0015]).
12. Claim(s) 16-18, 20-30, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dantanarayana in view of Bertinetti and McPherson Allnutt et al. (US 2016/0354557).
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Dantanarayana reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on during assembling of the ventilator device the functional arrangement is insertable into its operational position in the device housing by means of an insertion movement along an insertion path (fig. 5A, shows pneumatic block 4020 being able to slide onto base 4016 while housing 4010 is on top) and the input/output device is displaceable into its arrangement position by means of an arrangement movement along an arrangement path (fig. 5A, circuit board 4202 is placed onto the pneumatic block 4020 via an arrangement path). The modified device of Dantanarayana further discloses the controller (fig. 5E, 4230) on the circuit board ([0195]) communicating to a therapy device controller (fig. 5E, 4240) which controls the pressure generator ([0204]) which all use a power supply (fig. 5E, 4210) which inherently requires wires between the components, but does not expressly disclose the use of rigid plugs and sockets between components.
However, McPherson teaches of a circuit board which uses a rigid plug and socket connection (fig. 2, plug 72 connects to fig. 10, socket 19 according to [0087])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the circuit board of Dantanarayana with plug/socket connections along the insertion path as taught by McPherson to make assembly of the device easy without the need for welding or soldering (McPherson [0033] -[0034]).
Double Patenting
13. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
14. Claims 16 and 27-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-24 of copending Application No. 18/021,139 hereinafter ‘139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader in at least one aspect.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the ‘139 claims and the application claims highlights (see underlined features in the ‘139 claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims.
Instant Application 18/021,140
Copending Application 18/021,139
Claims 16 and 27
Claim 22
A ventilator device for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients, comprising: - a device housing, - a functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing in an operational position, which exhibits as functional units at least a section of a respiratory gas line, a pressure modification device for modifying a respiratory gas pressure in the respiratory gas line, and a control device for controlling the operation at least of the pressure modification device as functional units of the functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing, and - an input/output device arranged at the device housing in an arrangement position, accessible from outside the device housing for its operation, for the input of data and/or control commands into the control device and/or for the output of data and information, where the input/output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission through an aperture in the device housing, where the input/output device comprises a latching formation and where inside the device housing there is provided a latching counter-formation, where in an operational ventilator device the latching formation is in positive-locking latching engagement with the latching counter-formation which prevents removal of the input/output device from its arrangement position in a lifting direction away from the device housing, where at least one formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation is moveable at least once from a release position along a movement path transversely to the lifting direction into a latching position, where in the release position no positive-locking latching engagement exists between latching formation and latching counter-formation and the then unlatched input/output device is removable from its arrangement position in the lifting direction away from the device housing and where in the latching position the positive-locking latching engagement is established.Claim 27The ventilator device according to Claim 16, wherein at least one surface out of an abutment surface of the latching formation and an abutment counter-surface of the latching counter-formation which abuts against the abutment surface when a positive-locking latching engagement is established is inclined to the movement path in such a way that during a movement of the at least one movable formation out of the latching formation and latching counter-formation from the release position into the latching position to establish the positive-locking latching engagement, a force effect is exerted on the input/output device in the direction towards the device housing through a sliding abutment engagement between the abutment surface and the abutment counter-surface.
A ventilation device for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients, comprising: - a device housing, - a functional assembly accommodated in the device housing in an operational position, which exhibits as functional units at least a section of a respiratory gas line, a pressure modification device for modifying a respiratory gas pressure in the respiratory gas line, and a control device for controlling the operation at least of the pressure modification device, and - an input/output device arranged at the device housing in an arrangement position, accessible from outside the device housing for its operation, for the input of data and/or control commands into the control device and/or for the output of data and information, where the input/output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission through an aperture in the device housing, where the input/output device is secured directly to the functional assembly against removal of the input/output device from its arrangement position in a lifting direction away from the device housing. Claim 22wherein a portion of the housing is between the input/output device and the functional assembly when the input/output device is secured to the functional assembly against removal of the input/output device from its arrangement position in a lifting direction away from the device housing; wherein in a ready-to-operate ventilation device, the latching formation and the latching counter-formation are in positive-locking latching engagement with one another, where at least one formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation is movable at least once from a release position into a latching position along a movement path transversely to the lifting direction, where in the release position there exists no positive-locking latching engagement between the latching formation and the latching counter-formation and the unlatched input/output device is removable from its arrangement position in the lifting direction away from the device housing, and where in the latching position the positive-locking latching engagement is established; and wherein at least one surface out of an abutment surface of the latching formation and an abutment counter-surface of the latching counter-formation which abuts against the abutment surface when a positive-locking latching engagement is established are inclined to the movement path in such a way that during a movement of the at least one movable formation out of the latching formation and latching counter-formation from the release position into the latching position to establish the positive-locking latching engagement, a force effect is exerted on the input/output device in the direction towards the device housing through a sliding abutment engagement between the abutment surface and the abutment counter-surface.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that ‘139 claim 22 includes features that are not in application claim 16. Following the rational in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 16 is anticipated by ‘139 claim 22, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 16 is obvious over ‘139 claim 22 with respect to the broadening aspect. For dependent claims 27-30, in view of the rationale provided above, the following claims are obvious over claims 22-24 of ‘139 due to having the same recited structures.
Claim 29 and 30
Claim 24
Claim 29. The ventilator device according to Claim 16, wherein only one formation out of latching formation and latching counter-formation is movable between the release position and the latching position.Claim 30. The ventilator device according to Claim 29, wherein only the latching counter-formation is movable between the release position and the latching position.
The ventilation device according to Claim 22, wherein the input/output device is secured at the functional assembly against removal from its arrangement position in the lifting direction away from the device housing by a latching formation configured or arranged at the input/output device and a latching counter-formation configured or arranged at the functional assembly; and only the latching counter-formation is movable between the release position and the latching position.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see “Remarks” page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 1, that the pneumatic block 4020 of Dantanarayana prevents the circuit board from being lifted from its arrangement position in the ventilator 4000. However, Dantanarayana only states that pneumatic block 4020 is coupled to chassis 4016 ([0192]). Further, the holes on the outside of pneumatic block 4020 and chassis 4016 suggest connection of the circuit board 4202 on top of the pneumatic block. Therefore, it is not clear how the pneumatic block of Dantanarayana would prevent the removal of the input/output device from the device housing.
Applicant argues, see “Remarks” page 11 paragraphs 2-3, that Dantanarayana does not teach a latching means or separate fasteners that are movable transversely to a lifting direction between a release position and a latching position. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, see “Remarks” page 12 paragraphs 2-5, that the combination of Dantanarayana and Bertinetti would render the structure incapable of working as the modification would require latching elements to protrude from the housing through the circuit board and onto a counter-formation on the pneumatic block and chassis and the housing does not have sufficient space. However, the modification presented in the rejection to claim 16 above is to replace the fastening means between the circuit board and the pneumatic block and chassis, meaning a latching formation on the underside of circuit board 4202 and counter-formations on the pneumatic block and chassis.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baker JR (US 2011/0071368) discloses a user interface for a medical device that utilizes connectors and electrical communication interfaces to connect an input/output device to the housing of a medical device.
17. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights