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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/4/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-5, 8, 9 and 11-16 have been amended [Note: the status indicators of claims 13, 14 and 16 in the claim set filed 5/4/2026 are listed as “original,” but amendments are present therein; Applicant should ensure that all status indicators are correct in their response to this Office Action], and claims 18-21 have been cancelled. As such, claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant has amended the drawings and specification to address the previous objections to the drawings, which are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address the previous objections thereto, which are hereby withdrawn.
On page 7 of Remarks filed 5/4/2026, Applicant requests reconsideration of the double patenting rejections in light of the amendments and/or that the rejections be held in abeyance. Double patenting rejections cannot be held in abeyance; the double patenting rejections are updated below.
Applicant has amended the claims to address some of the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph and convincingly argued on page 9 regarding claims 10 and 12; any previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claims 2-7 under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph, Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks that “a person skilled in the art…would readily understand how a “state” could be “based on” some condition…paragraphs [0089]-[0090]…the terms are plain and understandable,” but Applicant does not actually state what they understand “a plurality of power states based on X” to mean.
The Examiner disagrees that paras [0089-90] inform the reader as to what “a plurality of power states based on X” means as it is recited in claims 2-7. Paras [0089-90] (and Table 1) are understood to indicate that the battery pack is configured to operate in all of the listed modes, and that it is the operation in a particular mode that is based on a particular set of listed conditions, not that existence of the plurality of modes themselves depend on any or all listed conditions, which is how the claims currently read. Also, it is noted that powering the battery pack off is understood to render the battery pack unable to operate in any of the power modes, such that none of the power modes are understood to be “based on” the battery pack being powered off as currently recited by claim 7. The rejection of claims 2-7 under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph is maintained below, where the Examiner has provided some suggestions below on how to overcome this rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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, namely, Pabon is applied below as a clear teaching regarding the obviousness of not providing power to a converter when in a standby state.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 4 should read “are both connected to the battery pack” for clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 [in as far as they are supported by the instant specification and as best understood, see the 112(a&b) rejections below] are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Pabon (US 2011/0057724 A1; hereinafter “Pabon”). Patented claim 18 contains narrower limitations than those of instant claims 1, 4 and 5, i.e. the standby mode of the patented claims comprises two power states (first and second standby stages) corresponding to the instant sleep and idle states (where battery power for powering/operating the patented stand-by circuit is inferred), respectively (instant claim 1), and the transitions between the states, inferred to be based on the voltage window detector detecting whether a current exceeds a threshold (“first voltage condition,” in the sleep state/first stage) and whether the current drawn is maintained within a particular range for a particular amount of time (“second voltage condition” that is different, in the idle state/second stage) (instant claim 1), are based on the flow generator being attached and drawing a current across the battery pack, i.e. being in operation (instant claims 4 and 5), and the converter is disabled in the stand-by mode and inferred to be activated (operating mode) once both standby stages have been completed (instant claim 1). Patented claim 18 is silent regarding wherein the converter is not provided with power when it is disabled. However, Pabon teaches that it was known in the power supply art/to solve the problem of excess standby power usage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disable and disconnect a converter when in standby (a power-saving mechanism…place the power supply…at zero or near-zero standby power…when there are no devices coupled to the power supply…or if the devices are in a standby or sleep mode…disable the…converter…and disconnect the…converter from [the power] source, para [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the disabling of the converter recited by the patented claims to include wherein the converter is not provided with power as taught by Pabon, in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that no power is used by the converter while in the standby mode, in order to predictably provide a low power consumption standby mode for extended battery life.
Claims 2, 3, 6-12 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Pabon and Wilkinson et al. (US 2012/0055340 A1; hereinafter “Wilkinson”). While patented claim 17 contains all of the limitations discussed above regarding patented claim 18, where the patented operating mode is another power state, corresponding to the instant supply state, and the patented switching between states by the stand-by circuit/from standby to supply utilizes the patented stand-by operations voltage to detect whether a current exceeds a threshold (in the sleep state/first stage) and whether the current drawn is maintained within a particular range for a particular amount of time (in the idle state/second stage) (instant claims 12 and 15), patented claim 17 is silent regarding wherein the converter is not provided with power in the stand-by mode (instant claims 2, 3, 6-12 and 15-17), and patented claim 17 is silent regarding the plurality of power states being based on whether a power supply unit is attached/active (instant claims 2 and 3) and providing a charge and PS state (instant claims 8-11), and/or the plurality of power states being based on whether the user requests power/the battery pack has been powered on/off (instant claims 6 and 7), and the patented claims do not positively recite the battery pack of patented claim 17 in conjunction with a respiratory therapy device comprising a housing with flow generator and controller as instantly claimed (instant claims 16 and 17). However, Pabon teaches not providing power to a converter in standby mode as discussed above, and Wilkinson teaches that all of the remaining elements were known in the respiratory device battery pack art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as discussed in the art rejections below. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the missing limitations in the patented claim to arrive at the instant claims as taught by Pabon and Wilkinson, in order to utilize known/common respiratory device/battery pack construction/elements to provide the predictable results of low power consumption in standby mode for extended battery life and a known arrangement for predictably charging the patented battery pack while also providing the option of routing continuous power from a supply unit power through the battery pack to the respiratory device, thus providing a common uninterrupted power supply arrangement in the event that mains power is lost.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Pabon and Wilkinson as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Vakilian et al. (US 2017/0229860 A1; hereinafter “Vakilian”). Modified patented claim 17 renders obvious a sleep state (first stage/microprocessor not powered and converter not provided with power) and an idle state (second stage/microprocessor powered and converter not provided with power), which are controlled by various inputs, including a microprocessor/pilot circuit (comprised by the microprocessor of patented claim 15, because it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the patented microprocessor enables/restores power to the converter after the maintained current is detected in order to perform the patented switching/activation), but the modified patented claim does not explicitly recite that latching circuits are employed to control internal power supplies/on/off states of the microprocessor and converter. However, Vakilian teaches that it was known in the battery pack art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize latch circuits for controlling dual stage activations from a sleep mode, see e.g. Figs. 2 and 4 and paras [0023-26] and [0036-40]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified patented claim 17 to include latching circuits as claimed, in order to utilize known means for predictably providing the dual activation functionality of modified patented claim 17.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Pabon and Valikian as applied to instant claim 13 above, and further in view of Bordewick et al. (US 2008/0099017 A1; hereinafter “Bordewick”). Patented claim 17 further recites that the microprocessor is powered in the idle state/second stage, and Vakilian further educates modified patented claim 17 to include wherein, in the idle state, internal rails of the battery pack (those supplying power to the valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor taught by Vakilian, which performs the same second stage activation as the patented second stage/idle state) are powered without powering the converter (Vakilian teaches turning on a valid signal detector/microprocessor via a lower power detector before supplying power to the connected device, which corresponds to powering the patented converter, see Vakilian Figs. 1-4; paras [0028], [0034-35], [0038-40] in view of Pabon regarding the obviousness of not powering the converter), in order to utilize known means to predictably provide power to the microprocessor, but modified patented claim 17 is silent regarding the microcontroller enabled to a display status on a user interface, and communicate externally on a controller area network bus, and internally on a system management bus. However, Bordewick teaches that it was known in the respiratory device battery pack art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a battery pack (battery module 20) to be configured to display status on a user interface (display 44) (Figs. 1A-2), and communicate externally on a controller area network bus and internally on a system management bus (Fig. 1A; battery module 20 may provide information [i.e. to the respiratory device/area network bus] on the mode of operation…indicate the level of charge in the associated battery or batteries [i.e. as ascertained by an internal battery system management bus] to be displayed on display 44; para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the microcontroller of modified patented claim 17 to display status on a user interface and communicate externally on a controller area network bus and internally on a system management bus as further taught by Bordewick, in order to provide the predictable result of a battery pack that communicates relevant information between the battery pack and the respiratory device/user (Bordewick para [0039]).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 12, in light of Applicant’s arguments on page 9 of Remarks, switching “to the operating mode” is understood to mean that the battery is switched into any state comprised by the operating mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-17), the specification as originally filed does not recite the term “voltage condition,” much less “first/second voltage conditions [that] are different conditions”. Applicant states on page 7 of Remarks that support for the amendments may be found at para [0098], but instant para [0098] makes no mention of different voltage conditions, much less in conjunction with sleep and idle states. Given that the claim amendments are directed to the sleep and idle states, instant paras [0077-80] and [0083-87] appear to be the most relevant to the amended subject matter. These paragraphs describe detecting current draw by monitoring a voltage to determine whether the voltage surpasses a threshold and whether the voltage surpasses the (same) threshold/remains in a particular range for a certain amount of time. While this provides support for the single species of detecting whether a voltage surpasses a threshold and whether the threshold surpasses the (same) threshold/remains in a particular range for a certain amount of time, it does not support the breadth of the newly-claimed genus of “first/second voltage conditions [that] are different conditions,” see MPEP 2163.05.1.B, particularly since the specification as originally filed does not appear to consider any other criteria for evaluating a current draw. For example, detection of a first voltage of a given magnitude and/or a voltage oscillating at a particular frequency and detection of a second voltage with a different and/or constant magnitude would fall into the instant scope but are not disclosed nor understood to be considered by Applicant at the time of filing, such that the newly-claimed subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
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 1-17 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 claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-17), it is unclear in the claims how the battery pack itself is to be “configured with battery power.” As best understood, in view of the instant specification, claim 1 will be considered to read “a component of the battery pack is configured to be supplied with battery power” (two instances), and Applicant could amend the claims similarly to address this rejection.
Regarding claims 2-7, it is unclear in the claims what it means for the plurality of states to be “based on” something, particularly based on a transient condition. For example, do the states only exist so long as the claimed positive condition is present, and if so, does that mean the states of claim 1 may not be present if e.g. a power supply unit is not attached per claim 2 (which would be an issue under 112(d))? And further regarding claim 7, it is unclear how the battery pack can have a plurality of power states if it has been powered off, unless absence of power is considered a power state, although this interpretation does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed. As best understood, for purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as meaning that the events recited therein (e.g. power supply/flow generator attached/turned on/input requesting power) are configured to induce a change from/switching between one power state to another. Applicant could address this rejection by amending claims 2-6 to read “wherein the battery pack is configured to switch between power states within the plurality of power states is configured to be powered off.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a stand-by mode" in line 1, wherein it is unclear in the claim whether this is different than the stand-by mode of claim 1, or the same. As best understood, for purposes of examination, it is the same, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending the claim to read “the stand-by mode”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a stand-by mode" in line 2, wherein it is unclear in the claim whether this is different than the stand-by mode of claim 1, or the same. As best understood, for purposes of examination, it is the same, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending the claim to read “the stand-by mode”.
Regarding claim 14, “are/is powered” are improper active method steps in apparatus claims, and it is unclear whether “enabled to” is an active/method step or a structural configuration. To address this rejection, Applicant could amend the claim to read “are/is configured to be powered” (two instances, using is/are as appropriate) and “configured”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson et al. (US 2012/0055340 A1; hereinafter “Wilkinson”) in view of Pabon (US 2011/0057724 A1; hereinafter “Pabon”) and Vakilian et al. (US 2017/0229860 A1; hereinafter “Vakilian”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Wilkinson discloses a battery pack (auxiliary power supply 810) (Figs. 9-11B) for a respiratory therapy device (comprising oxygen concentrator system 100) (Figs. 2, 9, 11A) that generates a flow of breathable gas to a patient (paras [0005], [0066], [0073], [0079], [0086], [0090], [0093], [0182]; and see also Fig. 16 and paras [0187-188]), the battery pack comprising:
a battery housing (the housing of 810) for engagement with a housing of the respiratory therapy device (the housing of 100) (Figs. 2 and 9/11A; para [0125]);
a cell (battery cells within internal battery pack 1115) within the battery housing for producing a voltage (Fig. 10; paras [0019] and [0126]);
a converter (DC/DC boost converter in boost block 1120) to convert the voltage from the cell to an operating voltage for the respiratory therapy device (Fig. 10; paras [0123-127], [0140] and [0143]);
an output connector (output connector 815, labelled 1160 in Fig. 10) of the battery pack configured to provide the operating voltage to an input connector (input port 805) of the respiratory therapy device (Figs. 9-11A; paras [0123-127] and [0134-149]); and
a stand-by circuit (standby mode is embedded in the control circuit, para [0146]) coupled to the battery pack (Fig. 10; paras [0137] and [0146-147]),
wherein the battery pack is configured to operate in a plurality of power states, wherein the plurality of power states comprises a stand-by mode (standby mode) having a sleep state (during standby mode) (Fig. 11B; paras [0146-147], i.e. when both converters are disabled), a supply state (Fig. 9; para [0143]), a charge state (paras [0135] and [0149], when the external charger 820 is powered and connected to power supply 810 without the power supply 810 connected to the oxygen concentrator system), and a PS state (Fig. 11A; para [0149], when charger 820 is attached/powered and concentrator 100 is attached/on/operating), wherein in the sleep state, the converter is not enabled (Fig. 11B; paras [0146-147], i.e. when both converters are disabled).
Wilkinson is silent regarding wherein the converter is not provided with power when it is disabled, and Wilkinson is silent regarding the standby mode further including an idle state, such that Wilkinson is silent regarding wherein in each of the sleep state and the idle state, the converter is not provided with power, and in the sleep state the battery pack is configured with battery power to operate to detect a first voltage condition, and in the idle state the battery pack is configured with battery power to operate to detect a second voltage condition, wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are for activating the battery pack, wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are different conditions. However, Pabon teaches that it was known in the power supply art/to solve the problem of excess standby power usage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disable and disconnect a converter (i.e. the converter is not provided with power) when in standby (a power-saving mechanism…place the power supply…at zero or near-zero standby power…when there are no devices coupled to the power supply…or if the devices are in a standby or sleep mode…disable the…converter…and disconnect the…converter from [the power] source, para [0054]), and Vakilian teaches that it was known in the battery power management art/to solve the problem of verifying that a battery should be fully brought out of sleep/standby before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a standby mode to include both a sleep state (power down/idle mode, where valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor is not powered) and an idle state (valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor is powered on but power is not yet outputted to the connected device [downstream component] 18/418, which can include a medical device per para [0017]) (Figs. 1-4; paras [0020-21], [0028], [0034-35], [0038-40]), wherein in each of the sleep state and the idle state, the downstream component is not provided with power (e.g. Fig. 4; [i]n the idle mode [corresponding to the instant stand-by mode], power switches 428 and 452 are off [corresponding to the instant sleep state]…[in the second stage of activation, corresponding to the instant idle state] valid signal detector 422 is provided power by closing power switch 428 [while power switch 452 remains open/off], paras [0038-40], where switch 452 to the downstream component remains open/off while the system remains in standby, i.e. until/unless the second stage of the activation is completed and normal operational power is supplied to the downstream component), and, as best understood, in the sleep state a component of the system is configured to be supplied with battery power (power detector 20 is continuously…powered by power supply 12, para [0021]; power supply 12 is a battery, para [0018]; paras [0036] and [0038]) to operate to detect a first voltage condition ([p]ower control circuit 14 detects energy at an input 32…indicative of a need or desire to wake up IC 18, using low power detector 20…[w]hen the energy is above a threshold, para [0020]; low power detector 20 includes a pulse detector…incoming signal is detected…based on energy associated with the incoming signal…a differential peak swing greater than 600 millivolts (mV), paras [0024-25]; para [0038]), and in the idle state a component of the system is configured to be supplied with battery power ([v]alid signal detector 22 receives power from power supply 12 via input 30 in response to the detect signal at output 34, para [0021]; paras [0036] and [0039]) to operate to detect a second voltage condition (power control circuit 14 validates the signal using valid signal detector 22 and if validated…causes power [to be supplied downstream], para [0020]; [v]alid signal detector 22 uses signal strength, pattern and/or duration of the energy [i.e. voltage per paras [0024-25]] to determine if a valid signal exists, para [0021]; para [0039]), wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are for activating the power supply (paras [0020-21] and [0036-40], where completion of the two stages in standby results in activation of downstream power supply), wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are different conditions (paras [0021] and [0036-40]; where the first condition is energy/voltage passing of a threshold, and the second condition is signal strength, pattern and/or duration of the energy/voltage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the standby mode of Wilkinson to further include an idle state, wherein in each of the sleep state and the idle state, the converter is not provided with power, and in the sleep state the battery pack is configured with battery power to operate to detect a first voltage condition, and in the idle state the battery pack is configured with battery power to operate to detect a second voltage condition, wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are for activating the battery pack, wherein the first voltage condition and the second voltage condition are different conditions as taught by Pabon and Vakilian, in order to provide the predictable results of ensuring that no power is used by the converter [as a downstream component] while in the standby mode, in order to predictably provide a low power consumption standby mode for extended battery life, as well as utilizing a two-stage activation from sleep to avoid false wake-ups in order to further save battery power (Valkilian paras [0011] and [0020]), e.g. if the output connector 815 of Wilkinson is accidentally unplugged from input port 805 during transport or connector 815 has been plugged into a respiratory therapy device that is off, by ensuring that power is actually being requested by an attached respiratory therapy device before turning on/supplying power to the converter/supplying power to the outlet.
Regarding claim 2, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether a power supply unit (external charger 820) is attached [to the battery pack], because switching to the charge and PS states is dependent on the charger 820 being powered and attached to power supply 810 (Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 3, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 2, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether the power supply unit is active, because if the external power charger is not providing power, then charging and/or power-feed-through is not occurring, i.e. the power supply 810 is not in/switched to the charge and/or PS states (Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 4, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether the respiratory therapy device, when attached to the battery pack, is in operation, because if the oxygen concentrator is not on and connected to the power supply 810 while the charger 820 is also connected to the power supply 810, then power-feed-through is not occurring, i.e. power supply 810 is not switched to the PS state (Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether the respiratory therapy device is attached to the battery pack, because the standby mode is only activatable when the oxygen concentrator is not attached (Fig. 11B; paras [0146-147]), switching to the charge state occurs when the charger 820 is powered/attached and the oxygen concentrator is not attached, and if the oxygen concentrator is not connected to the power supply 810 while the charger 820 is also connected to the power supply 810, then power-feed-through cannot occur, i.e. power supply 810 is not switched to the PS state (Fig. 9 vs Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 6, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether a user supplies an input requesting power from the battery pack, because the user must detach the output connector 815 from the input port 814, which comprehends an input requesting power because it is an action applied to the system that indicates a desire for power, to switch the power supply out of the standby mode (Figs. 9 and 11B; paras [0125], [0135-137], [0146-147]).
Regarding claim 7, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, Wilkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of power states is based on whether the battery pack has been powered off, because the battery can be powered off (para [0144]) and the power states discussed above are dependent on the battery being powered on.
Regarding claim 10, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 9, wherein modified Wilkinson teaches wherein [the] stand-by mode of the battery pack comprises the sleep state, the charge state, and the idle state (see claim 1 discussion above, wherein the respiratory therapy device is not powered by the battery pack in the sleep/charge/idle states and thus they are all considered to be comprised by the stand-by mode).
Regarding claim 11, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the battery pack of claim 8, wherein Wilkinson further discloses wherein an operating mode of the battery pack comprises the supply state and the PS state (Figs. 9 and 11A; paras [0135] and [0149], where the supply state and the PS state both allow the respiratory therapy device to operate and thus comprehend an operating mode).
Regarding claim 13, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 8, wherein Vakilian further educates modified Wilkinson to include wherein, in the idle state and the sleep state, latching circuits are configured to enable and disable internal power supplies, which are controlled by various inputs, including a microcontroller, pilot circuit, user interface button, and/or input power detection (Vakilian Fig. 2; paras [0023-27] and [0035]), in order to utilize known/common means for predictably inducing the sleep state and providing the two-stage activation from sleep discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 8, wherein Vakilian further educates modified Wilkinson to include wherein, in the sleep state, the battery pack is configured to provide a stand-by voltage to output terminals of the battery pack and to provide power to a pilot detect module (comprising low power detector 20/420) (Vakilian Figs. 1-3; paras [0021], [0024-25] and [0036-40]), in order to utilize known means for predictably providing the two-stage activation from sleep discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches a respiratory therapy device (comprising oxygen concentrator system 100) (Wilkinson Figs. 2, 9, 11A) to generate a flow of breathable gas to a patient (Wilkinson paras [0005], [0066], [0073], [0079], [0086], [0090], [0093], [0182]; and see also Wilkinson Fig. 16 and paras [0187-188]), comprising:
a housing (the housing of 100) (Wilkinson Figs. 2, 9 and 11A);
a flow generator (comprising compressor 210) in the housing to generate the flow of breathable gas (Wilkinson paras [0005], [0066], [0073], [0079], [0086], [0090], [0093], [0182]), the flow generator having an operating voltage (Wilkinson Figs. 9-11A; paras [0123-127] and [0134-149]); and
a battery pack according to claim 1, engageable with the housing and configured to power the flow generator (Wilkinson Figs. 9 and 11A; see claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 17, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Valkilian teaches the respiratory therapy device of claim 16, wherein Wilkinson further discloses wherein the flow generator comprises a controller (controller 1650) configured to control the flow generator to generate a positive airway pressure therapy (Fig. 16; paras [0187-188]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 2014/0225620 A1; hereinafter “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 12, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 11, wherein Vakilian educates modified Wilkinson to include wherein the stand-by circuit is configured to switch the battery pack from the stand-by mode to the operating mode upon detection of an energy signal (input 32), indicating that a connected device needs to be supplied power, being conveyed to the battery pack (Vakilian paras [0020-27]), but modified Wilkinson is silent regarding the energy signal being specifically a current drawn from the battery pack. However, current and voltage are directly related per Ohm’s law, and Campbell teaches that it was known in the battery power management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch a battery from stand-by mode to an operating mode upon detecting a current drawn from the battery (deactivate the standby mode and return to a normal operation mode when the battery monitoring system determines…a current draw on the battery surpasses a certain threshold, para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Wilkinson to include wherein the energy signal for switching to the operating mode is specifically a current drawn from the battery pack as taught by Campbell, in order to utilize a known/established means to predictably switch the battery from stand-by mode to operating mode (Campbell para [0039]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Bordewick et al. (US 2008/0099017 A1; hereinafter “Bordewick”).
Regarding claim 14, Wilkinson in view of Pabon and Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 13, wherein Pabon and Vakilian further educate modified Wilkinson to include wherein, in the idle state, internal rails of the battery pack (those supplying power to the low power detector 20/420 and valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor taught by Vakilian) are powered without powering the converter (see claim 1 discussion above, where Vakilian teaches powering a valid signal detector/microprocessor via a lower power detector before supplying power to the connected device/converter of Wilkinson, which is disconnected from/not provided power in the standby mode as taught by Pabon), and a microcontroller of the battery pack is powered (the valid signal detector/microprocessor taught by Vakilian to be included in modified Wilkinson is taught to be powered in the idle state/second stage of activation, see Vakilian paras [0021], [0036] and [0039]), and Bordewick teaches that it was known in the respiratory device battery pack art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a battery pack (battery module 20) to be configured/enabled to display status on a user interface (display 44) (Figs. 1A-2), and communicate externally on a controller area network bus and internally on a system management bus (Fig. 1A; battery module 20 may provide information [i.e. to the respiratory device/area network bus] on the mode of operation…indicate the level of charge in the associated battery or batteries [i.e. as ascertained by an internal battery system management bus] to be displayed on display 44; para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Wilkinson to include wherein, in the idle state, internal rails of the battery pack are powered without powering the converter, and a microcontroller of the battery pack is powered wherein the microcontroller is enabled to display status on a user interface and communicate externally on a controller area network bus, and internally on a system management bus as taught by Pabon, Valkilian and Bordewick, in order to utilize known/common components/configurations to provide the two-stage activation from sleep discussed above regarding claim 1 and to provide the predictable result of a battery pack that communicates relevant information between the battery pack and the respiratory device/user (Bordewick para [0039]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights