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 March 15, 2023. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, claims 1-15 have been cancelled, and claims 16-35 have been added. Thus, claims 16-35 are presently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed March 15, 2023 fails to provide an English translation of non-patent literature documents 2 and 6 and the information disclosure statement filed September 3, 2025 fails to provide an English translation of non-patent literature document 1 and therefore they fail 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.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a single paragraph and exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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/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.
“attachment formation” in claim 25 line 2.
“attachment counter-formation” in claim 25 line 3.
“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 § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 16-35 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the limitation “input/output device” in claim 16 lines 9, 12, and 15 and claim 18 line 2 is unclear if it is meant to mean “input and output”, “input or output”, or “input and/or output”.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “as specified” in line 2 is unclear as to what is being referred to. The claim is interpreted to mean the first and second frame section are detachable.
Claim 25 includes the limitation “attachment formation” in line 2 and “attachment counter-formation” in line 3 which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (page 11 lines 11-20 of the specification does not provide structure for the limitations, and page 11 lines 22-25 states that attachment between the housing and frames can be accomplished through clamping or latching but similarly does not provide structure for an ”attachment formation”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the device housing” and “the frame” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the axis of rotation” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claim(s) 16-22 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giard et al. (US 2021/0069443).
Regarding claim 16, Giard discloses a ventilator device (fig. 1, ventilator 1) for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients ([0003] states that a ventilator can be used to assist patients with respiratory function), comprising:
- A device housing (fig. 1, external housing 2),
- A functional arrangement accommodated in the device housing ([0101] states housing 2 of the ventilator encloses a control means), where the functional arrangement as functional units exhibits at least a section of a respiratory gas line (fig. 5, connectors 13 include conduits for mechanical or fluidic connection which are shown leading into housing 2, see [0100] which states a patient circuit connecting ventilator 1 and the patient can be through attachment point 13), a pressure modification device for modifying a respiratory gas pressure in the respiratory gas line ([0003] states that ventilators have a motorized micro-blower to deliver respiratory gas at a high pressure, [0069] states that the external housing contains a micro-blower), and a control device for controlling the operation at least of the pressure modification device ([0077] states that the external housing comprises control means to control functioning of the electric motor of the micro-blower), and
- An input/output device arranged at the device housing (fig. 5, the front face 10 of housing 2 includes a display screen 11, [0098] states it can be a touch screen for adjusting the device), accessible from outside the device housing for its operation (fig. 5, screen 11 is accessible through front face 10), for the input of data and/or control commands into the control device and/or for the output of data and information ([0098] states that the screen can allow output of information and input of choices or adjustments), where the input/output device is linked with the control device for signal transmission ([0082]-[0084] states that the control means includes a human-machine interface (HMI) for setting selection, [0098] states that screen 11 can be the HMI),
wherein the ventilator device exhibits a frame (fig. 1, exoskeleton structure 3), where the device housing with the input/output device arranged thereon is accommodated at the frame (fig. 1, ventilator 1 is inside exoskeleton 3) rotatably about a virtual axis of rotation (fig. 5, the ventilator and frame are placed on their back in a recumbent position, see [0094], meaning rotation is allowed around a virtual axis).
Regarding claim 17, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the device housing exhibits a prism shape (fig. 1, external housing 2 is a prism) which extends along a prism axis with a housing casing wall (see annotated fig. 5 below, the housing casing wall are the portions of housing 2 not including the side walls, right-hand face 20 is shown) 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 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 collinearly).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the axis of rotation (see annotated fig. 5 above) proceeds at a distance from the input/output device (see annotated fig. 5 above, screen 11 is on the front wall 10 which is a distance from the rotation axis).
Regarding claim 19, the device of Giard 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 right and left-hand faces 20 and 30 which are part of housing 2).
Regarding claim 20, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 17 and further reads on a plurality of physical functional interfaces (fig. 5, connectors or attachment points 13), which are provided at the device housing (fig. 5, points 13 are on the right-hand face 20 which is part of housing 2), are configured on at least one axial, with respect to the prism axis, end-side front face of the device housing (see annotated fig. 5 above, right-hand face 20 is axial relative to the prism axis).
Regarding claim 21, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 17 and further reads on a respiratory gas aspiration aperture and/or a connector (fig. 5, connectors 13 can include one for a patient circuit to deliver gas, see [0100]) for establishing a fluid-mechanical connection ([0100] states that connectors 13 can attach to flexible conduits mechanically and fluidically), which are provided at the device housing (fig. 5, connectors 13 are on the right-hand face 20 of housing 2), are configured on at least one axial, with respect to the prism axis, end-side front face of the device housing (see annotated fig. 5 above, right-hand face 20 is axial relative to the prism axis).
Regarding claim 22, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 20 and further reads on the plurality of physical functional interfaces (fig. 5, connectors or attachment points 13) are configured and arranged at the at least one axial end-side front face of the device housing (fig. 5, points 13 are on the right-hand face 20 which is part of housing 2) in such a way that with respect to the prism axis they face in the axial direction (see annotated fig. 5 above, right-hand face 20 is axial relative to the prism axis).
Regarding claim 26, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the frame exhibits a carrying handle (fig. 1, carrying handle 9) configured for manual handling ([0113] states that handle 9 allows manual lifting and transport).
Regarding claim 27, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 26 and further reads on the carrying handle proceeds in parallel to the axis of rotation (see annotated fig. 1 below, the handle is parallel to the defined axis of rotation).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claim(s) 23, 24 as best understood, and 28-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giard in view of Barker (US 2003/0070236).
Regarding claim 23, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 16 and further reads on the frame (fig. 1, exoskeleton structure 3) exhibits a first frame section holding the device housing (fig. 1, base 6, fig. 2, elongate elements 4, and fig. 3, joining structures 17) and a second frame section holding the first frame section (fig. 2, joining zone 8 which includes carrying handle 9). Giard further discloses that handle 9 can be made of multiple pieces ([0114]), but is silent on the first frame section is mounted on the second frame section rotatably about the axis of rotation.
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 Giard with the handle as taught by Barker to allow the mounting of the ventilator onto railing (Barker [0019]).
The modified device of Giard reads on the limitations of the first frame section (Giard fig. 1, base 6, fig. 2, elongate elements 4, and fig. 3, joining structures 17) is mounted on the second frame section (Giard fig. 2, joining zone 8 which includes carrying handle 9) rotatably about the axis of rotation (Barker fig. 3, pins 24 allow rotation of the handle meaning the first frame section would be allowed to rotate around the axis of rotation relative to the second frame section)
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 23 and further reads on the first frame section (Giard fig. 1, base 6, fig. 2, elongate elements 4, and fig. 3, joining structures 17) is accommodated detachably (Barker fig. 3, the handle 12 is held in place via pins 24, and removal of the pins would allow removal of the handle) at the second frame section (Giard fig. 2, joining zone 8 which includes carrying handle 9).
Regarding claim 28, the device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a handle (fig. 1, handle 9) 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 Giard with the handle as taught by Barker to allow the mounting of the ventilator onto railing (Barker [0019]).
The modified device of Giard 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 Giard 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 Giard, therefore, the pins allow movement of the suspension arrangement relative to Giard fig. 1, housing 2).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Giard 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_image3.png
556
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Giard 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 Giard 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 Giard 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_image4.png
535
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, the device of Giard reads on a ventilator device (fig. 1, ventilator 1) for at least supportive artificial respiration of patients ([0003] states that a ventilator can be used to assist patients with respiratory function), and further discloses a handle (fig. 1, handle 9) 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 Giard with the handle as taught by Barker to allow the mounting of the ventilator onto railing (Barker [0019]).
The modified device of Giard 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 Giard, therefore, the pins allow movement of the suspension arrangement relative to Giard fig. 1, housing 2).
Regarding claim 34, the modified device of Giard 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 Giard 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 Giard fig. 1 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).
16. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giard in view of Barker as applied in the rejection of claim 24 and further in view of Daske et al. (US 11,793,959).
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Giard reads on the limitations of claim 24 and further reads on both the first frame section (Giard fig. 1, base 6, fig. 2, elongate elements 4, and fig. 3, joining structures 17) and the second frame section (Giard fig. 2, joining zone 8 which includes carrying handle 9) each exhibit an attachment formation (Giard [0105] states that various exoskeleton connections can be screwed together; and Barker fig. 3, the handle 12 is held in place via pins 24) and the modified device of Giard further discloses attachment counter-formations (Giard [0105] the receiving opening for the screw; Barker [0018] states the pins connect to holes or grooves, fig. 3, grooves 28), but does not expressly disclose that the counter formations are positioned on the device housing (Giard fig. 1, housing 2).
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to screw the base (Giard fig. 1, 6) into the housing (Giard fig. 1, 2), where the screw is the attachment formation and a corresponding opening is the counter-formation, in order to maintain a rigid connection between the exoskeleton and the external housing (see Giard [0014]) since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in shape or form is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It appears further modified device of Giard would perform equally well with the base being screwed into the ventilator housing for maintaining a rigid connection between the exoskeleton components and the ventilator (Giard [0014]).
Regarding the attachment of the carrying handle to the housing, Daske teaches of a ventilator 100 with a carrying handle on the cover plate 39b which allows for improved portability of the ventilator itself (col. 16, lines 60-67 through col. 17, lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle (Barker fig. 1, 12) including the attachment formation (Barker fig. 3, pins 24) and counter-formation (Barker fig. 3, grooves 28) onto the external housing of the ventilator (Giard fig. 1, 2) to improve the portability of the ventilator (Daske col. 16, lines 60-67 through col. 17, lines 1-13). It appears further modified device of Giard would perform equally well with the handle located on the external housing of the ventilator (Giard fig. 1, 2) for allowing both the ventilator and exoskeleton to be moved together (Giard [0062]).
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mason et al. (US 2008/0173784) discloses an integral handle for a portable patient monitoring device which includes hooks that fold into the device. Chaffard et al. (EP-2671607) discloses a respirator that has a handle and hooks for wall mounting. Stern (DE-10323754) discloses a ventilator with a hanging device.
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