DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 5/26/26. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-48 are presently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 41-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/23 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Non-patent literature 2 and 3 are missing a date on the IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“coupling member” in claims 1 and 18 (corresponding structure is a keyway [0084];
“therapeutic gas delivery system” in claim 39 (corresponding structure is a gas source coupling attached to a bay, a gas source pressure sensor, at least one gas source identifier, and a gas source identifier reader [00100]).
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “upper power cord holder” and “lower power cord holder” from claim 36 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “comprising QR” suggested to be changed to --comprising a QR-- for grammatical reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-5, 7-9, 12, 16-17, 25-31, 33, 35 and 39 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.
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12, 16-17 and 25 use “about” language, however it is unclear what the scope of this language includes.
Claim 5 recites “the cylinder provides NO accuracy at 20 degrees Celsius of plus/minus 20% or 2 ppm, whichever is greater” however it is unclear what is meant by this recitation. Specifically, does “or ppm” mean plus or minus 2 ppm. Does “whichever is greater” refer to if 20 degrees Celsius of plus/minus 20% or plus/minus 2 ppm is more accurate? Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites “two QR codes” however it is unclear if these QR codes include the QR code from claim 14, from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 26 recites “a first gas supply subsystem” and “a second gas supply subsystem” however it is unclear if these include the gas supply subsystem of claim 18.
Claims 1 and 25 limitation “therapeutic gas delivery device” and claim 33 limitation “a locking mechanism” and claim 39 limitation “a device mounting locking mechanism” 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. 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.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montgomery et al. (2012/0116292).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1 and 6 Montgomery discloses a therapeutic gas source comprising: a cylinder 28 operable to contain a therapeutic gas comprising [0100]: a body (body of 28); and a gas source valve body 13, wherein the gas source valve body has a valve 26 and a coupling member 36 [0116].
Regarding claim 2, Montgomery discloses that the coupling member is a keyway (opening 36) configured to removably couple (see arrow 19 in fig. 1) to a key 18 in a therapeutic gas delivery device (70 [0109][0116] fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Montgomery discloses that the therapeutic gas has an NO concentration of about 4880 ppm [0111] and an initial pressure of about 3000 psi [0111].
Regarding claim 6, Montgomery discloses that the cylinder has an initial pressure of at least 468 psi [0111].
Regarding claim 13, Montgomery discloses that the body has an exterior surface (exterior surface of 28).
Claims 32-35 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marchal et al. (2023/009940).
Regarding claim 32, in fig. 1 and 5 Marchal discloses a cart 1 comprising: a base 2; a stand (5, 8, 3 and 10); one or more casters 30 attached to the base; a cylinder storage area housed within the stand (see area in fig. 1 and 7 where cylinders 200 are housing within 5, 8, 3 and 10); and a mounting post 6 having two device mounting hooks (each hook of 20, left half of 20 is left hook and right half of 20 is right hook, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, Marchal discloses that each caster has a locking mechanism operable to lock the casters in a stationary position (the locking mechanism is the brake described in that immobilizes the cart [0126]).
Regarding claim 34, Marchal discloses that the cylinder storage area is operable to store 2, 3 (see fig. 7), or 4 cylinders.
Regarding claim 35, Marchal discloses that the mounting post 6 is operable to receive a therapeutic gas delivery device 100 on the two device mounting hooks [0152].
Regarding claim 38, Marchal discloses that the stand has a handle 10.
Regarding claim 39, Marchal discloses that a therapeutic gas delivery system 100 is locked on to the two device mounting hooks using a device mounting locking mechanism (“a fastening” fix the therapeutic gas delivery system on to the two device mounting hooks [0152]).
Regarding claim 40, Marchal discloses that an O2 cylinder recess (where first 200 resides) on the base operable to receive an O2 cylinder (able to receive an O2 cylinder); an O2 cylinder bracket 13 on the stand operable to receive the O2 cylinder (Fig. 1); and a strap 14 adjacent to the O2 cylinder bracket operable to secure the O2 cylinder to the O2 cylinder bracket [0164].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miller (2022/016189).
Regarding claim 3, Montgomery is silent regarding that the therapeutic gas comprises about 0.4% to about 0.5% NO and about 99.6% to about 99.5% N2. However, Miller teaches a therapeutic gas that comprises at least about 0.12% NO [0069] and about 99.88 N2 (the mixture includes nitrogen as the remaining inert gas 100%-.12%=99.88% [0069]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Montgomery’s therapeutic gas with a therapeutic gas comprises about 0.4% to about 0.5% NO and about 99.6% to about 99.5% N2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that a therapeutic gas comprises about 0.4% to about 0.5% NO and about 99.6% to about 99.5% N2 would perform equally as well at providing a respiratory therapy to a user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miller (2022/016189).
Regarding claim 5, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder provides NO accuracy at 20 degrees Celsius of plus/minus 20% or 2 ppm, whichever is greater. However, Hall teaches that the cylinder provides NO accuracy at 0.5 ppm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Montgomery’s NO accuracy with an NO accuracy of 2 ppm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that an NO accuracy at 2 ppm would perform equally as well at providing a respiratory therapy to a user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lohnes (2008/0314602).
Regarding claim 7, Montgomery discloses that the cylinder has a product volume of about 70 L (34 L is about 70 L [0011]), but is silent regarding a useable product volume of about 54 L. However, Lohnes teaches a filling capacity of a gas cylinder of about 75% [0038], which is about the difference between 70 and 54 L. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s useable volume with a useable volume of about 54 L (75% filling capacity), as taught Lohnes, for the purpose of preventing overpressure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Barratt et al. (2020/0024065).
Regarding claim 8, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder has a diameter of about 70 mm to about 80 mm and a height of about 210 mm to about 220 mm. However, Barratt teaches a cylinder that has a diameter of about 70 mm to about 80 mm and a height of about 210 mm to about 220 mm [0086]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s cylinder height and diameter with a diameter of about 70 mm to about 80 mm and a height of about 210 mm to about 220 mm, as taught Barratt, for the purpose of providing alternate cylinder dimensions having the predictable results of storing gas.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fine et al. (2009/0314289).
Regarding claim 9, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder has a weight of less than about 2.2 lb. However, Fine teaches a cylinder that has a diameter of about 8.3 pounds [0042]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Montgomery’s cylinder weight with a weight of less than about 2.2 lb, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that a cylinder weight of less than about 2.2 lb would perform equally as well at providing a respiratory therapy to a user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Edmonds et al. (4,538,395).
Regarding claim 10, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder has a shelf life of at least 2 years. However, Edmonds teaches a cylinder that has a shelf life of at least 2 years (abstract, several years). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s cylinder shelf life with a shelf life of at least 2 years, as taught Edmonds, for the purpose of providing longevity to the cylinder.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Fine et al. (2003/0064115).
Regarding claim 11, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder provides NO2 byproduct less than or equal to 1 at a dose of 40 ppm into 60% 02. However, Fine teaches a cylinder that the cylinder provides NO2 byproduct less than or equal to 1 at a dose of 40 ppm into 60% O2 (abstract, 20 to 100 ppm NO with inhibition of NO2 into 100% oxygen or oxygen mixed with air [0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Montgomery’s cylinder with a cylinder that the cylinder provides NO2 byproduct less than or equal to 1 at a dose of 40 ppm into 60% O2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that a cylinder that provides NO2 byproduct less than or equal to 1 at a dose of 40 ppm into 60% O2 would perform equally as well at providing a respiratory therapy to a user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Spruiell et al. (2003/0154981).
Regarding claim 12, Montgomery is silent regarding that the cylinder has a container wetted volume of about 0.4 L. However, Spruiell teaches a cylinder that has a container wetted volume of about 0.4 L. ([0025] internal volume of 67 cubic inches = 1.09 L, which is about .4 L). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s container wetted volume with a container wetted volume of about .4 L, as taught Spruiell, for the purpose of providing an alternately sized cylinder having the predictable results of providing therapeutic gas to a user.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim et al. (2024/0144158).
Regarding claim 14, Montgomery is silent regarding that the exterior surface includes at least one gas source identifier comprising QR code. However, Kim teaches an exterior surface includes at least one gas source identifier comprising QR code (131 [0042] Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s exterior surface with a QR code, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of providing information tags for the system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery and Kim, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Rothwell et al. (2025/0344761) and Bathe et al. (8,291,904).
Regarding claim 15, Montgomery is silent regarding that QR code provides a therapeutic gas concentration, an identity of the therapeutic gas, a serial number, product code and an expiration date. However, Rothwell teaches a QR code [0108] that provides a therapeutic gas concentration [0108], an identity of the therapeutic gas (ingredients [0108]), a serial number [0108], product code (SKU [0108]) and an expiration date [0108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s exterior surface with a QR code that provides a therapeutic gas concentration, an identity of the therapeutic gas, a serial number, product code and an expiration date, as taught by Rothwell, for the purpose of providing further information for the information tags for the system. The modified Montgomery is silent regarding that the QR code provides a lot number. However, Bathe teaches a lot number provided via a bar code [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s QR code with the addition of a lot number, as taught by Bathe, for the purpose of providing further information for the information tags for the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, Kim, Rothwell and Bathe, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Knowles et al. (2021/0353095).
Regarding claim 16, Montgomery is silent regarding that the exterior surface contains two QR codes spaced about 30 to 60 degrees apart. However, Knowles teaches the exterior surface contains two optical codes spaced about 30 to 60 degrees apart (91 and 92 are spaced apart about 180 degrees on front and back sides of a container Fig. 7-9 [0009][0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s QR code with two QR codes spaced about 30 to 60 degrees apart, as taught by Knowles, for the purpose of ensuring operation regardless of orientation ([0009] Knowles).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sarangapani et al. (2016/0256638).
Regarding claim 17, Montgomery is silent regarding that the therapeutic gas source is configured to deliver therapeutic gas for up to about 9 days. However, Sarangapani teaches a therapeutic gas source is configured to deliver therapeutic gas for up to about 9 days [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s therapeutic gas source with a therapeutic gas source that is configured to deliver therapeutic gas for up to about 9 days, as taught by Sarangapani, for the purpose of providing therapy for an extended period of time.
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (2012/0116292) in view of Bathe et al. (8,291,904).
Regarding claim 18, in fig. 1 and 6-8 Montgomery discloses a therapeutic gas delivery system 70 comprising: at least one gas supply subsystem (28 and 13) comprising: a gas source coupling 22 attached to a bay (where 28 resides in fig. 8); the gas source coupling configured to receive a coupling member 36 of a gas source valve 13 on a therapeutic gas source 28 and form a fluid flow connection with the therapeutic gas delivery system (Fig. 7 [0142]); but is silent regarding a gas source pressure sensor adjacent to and in fluid communication with the gas source valve, wherein the gas source valve provides a gas flow path from the gas source coupling to the gas source pressure sensor, and the gas source pressure sensor is configured to measure a gas pressure at the gas source coupling, to be in communication over a communication path with a therapeutic gas delivery system controller comprising a CPU, and to communicate a pressure value over the communication path to the therapeutic gas delivery system controller. However, in fig. 1 Bathe teaches a gas source pressure sensor (110, Col. 9, ll. 23-26) adjacent to and in fluid communication with the gas source valve 100, wherein the gas source valve 100 provides a gas flow path from a gas source coupling to the gas source pressure sensor (Fig. 1, Col. 9, ll. 23-26), and the gas source pressure sensor 110 is configured to measure a gas pressure at the gas source coupling (Col. 9, ll. 23-26), to be in communication over a communication path with a therapeutic gas delivery system controller comprising a CPU (valve processor 122 is in communication with control module 200, which is in communication with pressure sensor 110 in order to control the valve, Fig. 4 Col. 9, ll. 23-26, Col. 12, ll. 48-52), and to communicate a pressure value over the communication path to the therapeutic gas delivery system controller (Col. 9, ll. 23-26, Col. 12, ll. 48-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s therapeutic gas delivery system with the addition of a pressure sensor, as taught by Bathe, for the purpose of providing appropriate therapy to a user. The modified Montgomery discloses at least one gas source identifier attached to the therapeutic gas source (radio frequency identification (RFID) device 50 [0146]); and a gas source identifier reader housed within the bay (RFID reader disposed within the delivery device [0146]), but is silent regarding that the gas source identifier reader is in communication over the communication path with the therapeutic gas delivery system controller; wherein the CPU of the therapeutic gas delivery system controller is configured to confirm one or more parameters of the therapeutic gas source. However, Bathe teaches a gas source identifier reader (scanning device Col. 7, ll. 10-25) that is in communication over a communication path with a therapeutic gas delivery system controller (Col. 7, ll. 10-25 to processor 122); wherein a CPU of the therapeutic gas delivery system controller is configured to confirm one or more parameters of the therapeutic gas source (Col. 7, ll. 10-25 by processor 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s gas source identifier reader with a gas source identifier reader that is in communication over a communication path with a therapeutic gas delivery system controller; wherein a CPU of the therapeutic gas delivery system controller is configured to confirm one or more parameters of the therapeutic gas source, as taught by Bathe, for the purpose of providing appropriate therapy to a user.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Montgomery discloses that the coupling member is a keyway (36, Montgomery).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Montgomery discloses that the gas source coupling is a key (18 Montgomery) and a key alignment indicator (20, Montgomery).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Montgomery discloses that the bay further comprises: a bay door (74 Montgomery); and a gas source valve lever (76 Montgomery).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery and Bathe, as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Knowles et al. (2021/0353095) and Kowalczyk et al. (2016/0012269).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Montgomery is silent regarding that the bay further comprises a tapered cove housing the gas source identifier reader. However, in fig. 8 Knowles teaches a bay 200 further comprises a tapered cove (housing of 701 and 702) housing the gas source identifier reader 701. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s bay with the addition of a tapered cove housing, as taught by Knowles, for the purpose of providing an alternate housing having the predictable results of reading a code. The modified Montgomery is silent regarding a window covering the gas source identifier reader. However, in fig. 7C Kowalczyk teaches a window 174 covering the gas source identifier reader 110 [0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s cover with the addition of a window, as taught by Kowalczyk, for the purpose of providing protection to the gas source identifier.
Claims 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery and Bathe, as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Kim et al. (2024/0144158) and Rothwell et al. (2025/0344761).
Regarding claim 23, Montgomery is silent regarding that the gas source identifier is a QR code. However, Kim teaches an exterior surface includes at least one gas source identifier comprising QR code (131 [0042] Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s exterior surface with a QR code, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of providing information tags for the system. The modified Montgomery is silent regarding that QR code provides a therapeutic gas concentration, an identity of the therapeutic gas, a serial number, product code and an expiration date. However, Rothwell teaches a QR code [0108] that provides a therapeutic gas concentration [0108], an identity of the therapeutic gas (ingredients [0108]), a serial number [0108], product code (SKU [0108]) and an expiration date [0108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s exterior surface with a QR code that provides a therapeutic gas concentration, an identity of the therapeutic gas, a serial number, product code and an expiration date, as taught by Rothwell, for the purpose of providing further information for the information tags for the system. The modified Montgomery is silent regarding that the QR code provides a lot number. However, Bathe teaches a lot number provided via a bar code [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s QR code with the addition of a lot number, as taught by Bathe, for the purpose of providing further information for the information tags for the system.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Montgomery the gas source identifier reader is a QR code reader (260 [0051] Kim).
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, Kim, Rothwell and Bathe, as applied to claim 24 above, in further view of Knowles et al. (2021/0353095).
Regarding claim 25, Montgomery is silent regarding that the therapeutic gas source has a first gas source identifier and a second gas source identifier spaced about 60 degrees apart. However, Knowles teaches the exterior surface contains two optical codes spaced about 30 to 60 degrees apart (91 and 92 are spaced apart about 180 degrees on front and back sides of a container Fig. 7-9 [0009][0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery’s QR code with two QR codes spaced about 30 to 60 degrees apart, as taught by Knowles, for the purpose of ensuring operation regardless of orientation ([0009] Knowles).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Montgomery is silent regarding that the therapeutic gas delivery system comprises a first gas supply subsystem and a second gas supply subsystem. However, Bathe teaches a therapeutic gas delivery system comprises a first gas supply subsystem (first cylinder 50 with valve 100) and a second gas supply subsystem (second cylinder 60 with valve 100, fig. 8 Col. 10, ll. 49-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s first gas supply subsystem with the addition of a second gas supply subsystem, as taught by Bathe, for the purpose of providing an additional gas therapy.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Montgomery discloses that the gas source identifier reader of the first gas supply subsystem is operable to read the first gas source identifier (131 [0042] Fig. 4 Kim).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Montgomery discloses that the gas source identifier reader of the second gas supply subsystem is operable to read the second gas source identifier (131 [0042] Fig. 4 Kim).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, Kim, Rothwell, Bathe and Knowles, as applied to claim 28 above, in further view of Burns, JR. et al. (2013/0284168).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Montgomery is silent regarding that if the parameters of the therapeutic gas source of the first gas supply subsystem or the therapeutic gas source of the second gas supply subsystem are incorrect the therapeutic gas delivery system will not operate to deliver therapeutic gas to a patient. However, Burns teaches that if an RFID tag identified drug is different from the permitted drug then the system will not allow the drug to enter into the system [0071]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Montgomery’s system with a system that does not allow for delivery of a gas that is not permitted, as taught by Burns, for the purpose of providing safety to the user.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Montgomery discloses that the gas source pressure sensor of the first gas supply subsystem and the gas source pressure sensor of the second gas supply subsystem are configured to measure an initial pressure of the therapeutic gas source of the first gas supply subsystem and the second gas supply subsystem (110, Col. 9, ll. 23-26 Bathe).
Claim 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery, Kim, Rothwell, Bathe, Knowles and Burns, as applied to claim 30 above, in further view of Langford et al. (2025/0256818) and Turner et al. (2023/0147328).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Montgomery is silent regarding that if the initial pressure of the therapeutic gas source of the first gas supply subsystem or the therapeutic gas source of the second gas supply subsystem is below 468 psi the therapeutic gas delivery system will not deliver therapeutic gas to a patient from the therapeutic gas source having an initial pressure below 468 psi. However, Langford teaches emitting a warning when pressure is below 55 bar (797.7 pis) [0031] and Turner teaches a system shut down when pressure drops below a set point [0150]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Montgomery’s system with a system that will not deliver therapeutic gas to a patient from the therapeutic gas source having an initial pressure below 468 psi, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that a system that will not deliver therapeutic gas to a patient from the therapeutic gas source having an initial pressure below 468 psi would perform equally as well at providing respiratory therapy. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchal, as applied to claim 32 above, in further view of Schoenig et al. (2016/0157951).
Regarding claim 36, Marchal is silent regarding that the stand has an upper power cord holder and a lower power cord holder. However, in fig. 18-19 Schoenig teaches a stand that has an upper power cord holder 601 and a lower power cord holder 602 [0123]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchal’s stand with the addition of an upper and lower power cord holder, as taught by Schoenig, for the purpose of organizing the cord to avoid a tripping hazard.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchal, as applied to claim 32 above, in further view of De Nando et al. (2016/0157951).
Regarding claim 37, Marchal is silent regarding that the cylinder storage area stores four cylinders. However, De Nando teaches a cylinder storage area stores four cylinders (3, 4, 7, 8, fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marchal’s three cylinder with four cylinders, as taught by De Nando, for the purpose of having further therapeutic gas available as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Despres et al. (2018/0149315) directed towards gas cabinets and Wassel et al. (2011/0140850) directed towards gas cylinders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights