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 04/29/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 16-19, 23-24, 27, 32-33, and 35 have been amended, claim 25 has been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 16-24 and 26-35 are presently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed 02/23/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 states “the ventilator device has input and output device”. It is recommended to replace this with –the ventilator device has an input and output device—for clarity of the claim.
Line 5 states “into the control device.” It is recommended to replace this with –into a control device—to avoid a potential 112b rejection due to a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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:
“pressure modification device” in claim 16 lines 6 and 8 is interpreted as “a fan” or the like according to specification page 2 lines 26-30.
“input and output device” in claim 16 lines 9, 12, and 15 and claim 18 line 2 is interpreted as a device including a monitor and switches or the like according to specification page 15 lines 21-25.
“suspension arrangement” in claim 28 line 2, claim 29 lines 1-2, claim 30 lines 1-2, and claim 33 lines 2 and 3 is interpreted as a hook or the like according to specification page 13 lines 10-14.
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) 16-24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaffard et al. (CA-2813937) in view of Feldhahn et al. (US 2015/0273167).
Regarding claim 16, Chaffard discloses a ventilator device (fig. 3, ventilator 10) for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients (see abstract, the assembly is usable during emergency interventions requiring assisted ventilation of a patient), comprising:
- A device housing (fig. 6, front face 10a and hooking means 1 and 11),
- An input and output device arranged at the device housing (page 5c states the respirator front face 10a includes control elements such as buttons, displays etc.), accessible from outside the device housing for its operation (page 5c states control elements are on the front face), for the input of data and/or control commands into the control device and/or for the output of data and information (page 5c states control element can include a button for input, and a display such as a screen for output),
wherein the ventilator device exhibits a frame (fig. 5, hooking means 1 and 11 are considered a first part and wall mount 20 is considered a second part of a frame), where the device housing with the input and output device arranged on the device housing are accommodated at the frame (fig. 6, shows the front face 10a which includes control elements is seated on wall mount 20) rotatably relative to the frame about a virtual axis of rotation (figs. 5-6 shows rotation of front face 10a relative to hooking tab 21 which can be considered a virtual axis of rotation).
Chaffard further discloses various components of ventilator (fig. 3, ventilator 10 includes interfaces on the sides), but does not expressly disclose a functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing, where the functional arrangement as functional units exhibits 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 where the input and output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission.
However, Feldhahn teaches of a device for artificial respiration that includes functional units including a section of a respiratory gas line (fig. 1, tube connection 4), a pressure modification device (fig. 3, blower box 5 houses a blower which applies set pressure values according to [0048]), a control device (fig. 3a, control board 23 that receives input from operating element 3 and is connected to the blower [0008]), where the input and output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission ([0048] states that input buttons are located with a display 13 for receiving user input and an operating element 3 for controlling therapy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ventilator of Chaffard with the gas line, pressure modification device, control device, and connections between the elements as taught by Feldhahn to allow ventilator functions of the various depicted interfaces (Chaffard fig. 3) and functionality to the described control elements (Chaffard page 5c).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the device housing exhibits a prism shape (Chaffard fig. 5, front face 10a and fig. 3, rear face 10b comprise a device housing which can be defined as a prism shape) which extends along a prism axis with a housing casing wall encircling the prism axis at a radial distance from the prism axis (see annotated fig. 5 below, the walls are a distance away from the axis), where the virtual axis of rotation proceeds in parallel to or collinearly with the prism axis (see annotated fig. 5 below, the rotation axis and prism axis can be defined parallel to one another).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the virtual axis of rotation (see annotated fig. 5 above) proceeds at a distance from the input and output device (see annotated fig. 5 above, buttons and display are located on front face 10a which is a distance from the virtual axis of rotation).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the axis of rotation penetrates through the device housing (see annotated fig. 5 above the axis of rotation penetrates the hooking means 11 which is considered part of the ventilator housing).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 17 and further reads on a plurality of physical functional interfaces (Chaffard fig. 3 shows various connection interfaces), which are provided at the device housing (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 below, the interfaces are on the side portion of ventilator 10), are configured on at least one axial, with respect to the prism axis, end-side front face of the device housing (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 17 and further reads on a respiratory gas aspiration aperture and/or a connector for establishing a fluid-mechanical connection (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 above where the Feldhahn fig. 1, tube connection 4 can be located), which are provided at the device housing (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 above where the interfaces are located at the device housing), are configured on at least one axial, with respect to the prism axis, end-side front face of the device housing (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 above, where the end-side is axial relative to the prism axis).
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 20 and further reads on the plurality of physical functional interfaces (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 above for various interfaces) are configured and arranged at the at least one axial end-side front face of the device housing in such a way that with respect to the prism axis they face in the axial direction (see annotated Chaffard fig. 3 above where the end-side front face is axial relative to the defined prism axis).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the frame exhibits a first frame section holding the device housing (Chaffard fig. 5 hooking means 1 and 11 are part of the device housing and act as a first frame section) and a second frame section holding the first frame section (Chaffard figs. 5-6, wall mount 20 is shown connecting to hooking means 1 and 11), where the first frame section is mounted on the second frame section rotatably about the virtual axis of rotation (see annotated Chaffard fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 23 and further reads on wherein the first frame section is accommodated detachably at the second frame section (Chaffard figs. 5-6, shows ventilator 10 detachably accommodated at wall mount 20).
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the frame exhibits a carrying handle (see annotated Chaffard fig. 5 below where the handle on the ventilator is connected to the first part of the frame and housing section exhibited by hooking means 1 and 11) configured for manual handling (Chaffard figs. 3 and 5, a handle shown on the respirator is inherently used for manual handling).
PNG
media_image3.png
811
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 26 and further reads on the carrying handle proceeds in parallel to the axis of rotation (see annotated Chaffard fig. 5 above, the handle is parallel to the defined axis of rotation).
11. Claim(s) 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaffard in view of Feldhahn as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Barker (US 2003/0070236).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 16, but fails to disclose a suspension arrangement.
However, Barker teaches of a monitor with a handle (fig. 1, 12) that is pivotally connected to the monitor by a pair of pins ([0018], fig. 3, 24) with hook portions (fig. 1, 34) for mounting the device on a railing (fig. 4, 30, see [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the handle of Chaffard with the handle as taught by Barker to allow the mounting of the ventilator onto railing (Barker [0019]).
The modified device of Chaffard reads on the ventilator device including a suspension arrangement (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34) which is configured to fix the ventilator device detachably onto an associated external structure (Barker fig. 4, hook portions 34 allow connection to a rail 30).
Regarding claim 29, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 28 and further reads on the suspension arrangement (Barker fig. 1, hook portion 34) is movable relative to the device housing and/or relative to the frame (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34 are connected to handle 12 which is rotatably connected via pins 24 to the ventilator of Chaffard, therefore, the pins allow movement of the suspension arrangement relative to Chaffard fig. 5, ventilator 10).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 29 and further reads on the suspension arrangement is rotatable about a suspension axis (see annotated Barker fig. 1 below where hook portions 24 can rotate relative to the defined suspension axis).
PNG
media_image4.png
556
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 28 and further reads on the suspension arrangement comprises at least one hook (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34 comprise two hooks).
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 29 and further reads on the at least one hook (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34) is arranged at the frame rotatably about a suspension axis which is parallel to the axis of rotation (see annotated Chaffard fig. 1 below, the position of the pins of Barker and therefore the suspension axis is above the rotation axis and is shown to be parallel).
PNG
media_image5.png
812
864
media_image5.png
Greyscale
12. Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaffard in view of Feldhahn and Barker.
Regarding claim 33, Chaffard discloses a ventilator device for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients (fig. 5, ventilator 10, and see abstract, the assembly is usable during emergency interventions requiring assisted ventilation of a patient), comprising a device housing (fig. 6, front face 10a and hooking means 1 and 11) wherein the ventilator device has an input and output device arranged at the device housing (page 5c states front face 10a of ventilator 10 includes buttons and a display), accessible from the outside of the device housing for its operation (page 5c states control elements are on the front face), the ventilator device further including a frame fig. 5, hooking means 1 and 11 are considered a first part and wall mount 20 is considered a second part of a frame) and wherein the device housing and the input and output device arranged on the device housing are accommodated at the frame (fig. 6, shows the front face 10a which includes control elements is seated on wall mount 20) rotatably relative to the frame about a virtual axis of rotation (figs. 5-6 shows rotation of front face 10a relative to hooking tab 21 which can be considered a virtual axis of rotation). Chaffard does not expressly disclose a functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing where the input and output device is 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 and output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission.
However, Feldhahn teaches of a device for artificial respiration that includes functional units including a section of a respiratory gas line (fig. 1, tube connection 4), a pressure modification device (fig. 3, blower box 5 houses a blower which applies set pressure values according to [0048]), a control device (fig. 3a, control board 23 that receives input from operating element 3 and is connected to the blower [0008]), where the input and output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission ([0048] states that input buttons are located with a display 13 for receiving user input and an operating element 3 for controlling therapy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ventilator of Chaffard with the gas line, pressure modification device, control device, and connections between the elements as taught by Feldhahn to allow ventilator functions of the various depicted interfaces (Chaffard fig. 3) and functionality to the described control elements (Chaffard page 5c).
The modified device of Chaffard fails to disclose a suspension arrangement.
However, Barker teaches of a monitor with a handle (fig. 1, 12) that is pivotally connected to the monitor by a pair of pins ([0018], fig. 3, 24) with hook portions (fig. 1, 34) for mounting the device on a railing (fig. 4, 30, see [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the handle of the ventilator of Chaffard with the handle as taught by Barker to allow the mounting of the ventilator onto railing (Barker [0019]).
The modified device of Chaffard reads on the ventilator device comprising a suspension arrangement (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34 comprise two hooks) which is configured to fix the ventilator device detachably onto an associated external structure (Barker fig. 4, hook portions 34 allow connection to a rail 30), the suspension arrangement being movable relative to the device housing (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34 are connected to handle 12 which is rotatably connected via pins 24 to the ventilator of Chaffard, therefore, the pins allow movement of the suspension arrangement relative to Chaffard fig. 5, ventilator 10).
Regarding claim 34, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 33 and further reads on the suspension arrangement comprises at least one hook (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34 comprise two hooks).
Regarding claim 35, the modified device of Chaffard reads on the limitations of claim 34 and further reads on the at least one hook (Barker fig. 1, hook portions 34) is arranged at the frame rotatably about a suspension axis which is parallel to the axis of rotation (see annotated Chaffard fig. 5 above in the rejection to claim 32, the position of the pins of Barker and therefore the suspension axis is above the rotation axis and is shown to be parallel).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-24 and 26-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. 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