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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it is believed that no undue burden would be presented by searching the distinct groups.” Applicant has provided no logical reasoning or objective evidence to support this assertion, and it is not found persuasive because the groups have different classifications and would require different search strategies/queries/fields of search, and art applicable to one may not be applicable to the other given the distinctness discussed in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 8/28/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “715” has been used to designate both a momentary push switch (para [0084]) and pilot current switch (Fig. 7). The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “706” has been used to designate both current control circuit (Fig. 7; para [0084]) and momentary push switch (para [0087]). 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. 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
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 should end in a colon, not a semi-colon
Claim 8, the term “UPS” should be spelled out
Claim 15, line 2 would have clearer antecedent basis if it were to read “ thereof”
Claim 16, line 6 should read “the battery pack” because it is referring to that of claim 1
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, 5, 8, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 15-19 contain narrower limitations that those of instant claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 14 and 15, i.e. the standby mode of the patented claims comprises two power states, corresponding to the instant sleep and idle states, and the patented operating mode is another power state, corresponding to the instant supply state, and the transitions between the states, utilizing the patented stand-by operations voltage, are based on the flow generator being attached and drawing a current across the battery pack/being in operation, and the converter is disabled (i.e. not turned on) while the microprocessor receives power (i.e. turned-on internal rails) and functions as a pilot detect module per patented claims 15, 16 and 19 [and see the claim interpretation on page 8 of the Office Action mailed 5/19/2022 of the parent application], and is fully capable of, as best understood, the intended use of claim 14 [see 112(b) discussion below].
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 2012/0055340 A1; hereinafter “Wilkinson”). The patented claims are silent regarding the plurality of power states being based on whether a power supply unit is attached/active and providing a charge/UPS state, and/or the plurality of power states being based on whether the user requests power/the battery pack has been powered on/off, and the patented claims do not positively recite the battery pack of claim 15 in conjunction with a respiratory therapy device comprising a housing with flow generator and controller as instantly claimed. However, Wilkinson teaches that all of these 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 claims to arrive at the instant claims as taught by Wilkinson, in order to utilize known/standard respiratory device/battery pack construction/elements to provide the predictable results of 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 standard 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 claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,534 in view of Vakilian et al. (US 2017/0229860 A1; hereinafter “Vakilian”). Patented claims 15-19 anticipate a sleep state (microprocessor off/converter off) and an idle state (microprocessor on/converter off), which are controlled by various inputs, including a microprocessor/pilot circuit (comprised by the microprocessor per patented claims 15, 16 and 19), but the patented claims do 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. Fig. 2 and paras [0023-26]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claims to include latching circuits as claimed, in order to utilize known means for predictably providing the patented dual activation actions.
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 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.
Claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-17) recites the limitation "the flow generator" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 1, line 3, only recites a flow generator housing, not a flow generator itself.
Regarding claims 2-7, it is unclear in the claims what it means for the plurality of states to be “based on” something. 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 or the battery pack e.g. turned on/off) are configured to induce a change from/switching between one power state to another.
Regarding claim 2, line 2 recites “is attached”…to what? As best understood, for purposes of examination, the claim will be considered to read “attached to the battery pack.”
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 does not positively recite the battery pack in combination with or connected to the flow generator, and the battery pack of claim 1 is understood to be a stand-alone component, such that it is unclear how the operational state of a completely separate entity (e.g. a flow generator) could have an effect on the power states of a stand-alone battery pack. Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 4 to depend on claim 5, e.g. similar to the dependence of claim 3 on claim 2, where switching between states is understood to (first) take into account if another component is attached to the battery pack, and if it is attached, (second) take into account whether the other component is active/in operation.
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, a battery pack that can be powered off and is configured to have a plurality of power states while powered on will considered to read on the instant limitation, but Applicant must make the scope/intended interpretation clear in response to this rejection.
Regarding claims 10 and 11 (and thus its dependent claim 12), it is unclear what the labeling of particular states as particular modes means as far as further limiting claim 8; what does a state being comprised by a mode mean structurally/functionally? Also, the states in claims 10-11 are members of the Markush group of claim 8, such that it is unclear whether claims 10-11 are positively requiring the battery pack to be configured to operate in the states recited therein, or whether these claims only further limit if the states are present in the prior art. Applicant could address this latter issue by amending claims 10-11 to depend on claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the stand-by mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 12 does not depend from claim 10. For purposes of examination, claim 12 will be considered to read “a stand-by mode”
Further regarding claim 12, it is unclear whether switching “to the operating mode” means that the battery is configured to be placed in both supply state and the UPS state (per claim 11, which groups them together), or whether it means the battery is switched into one of those two states. As best understood, the latter interpretation is intended, but the desired interpretation should be made clearer in the claims.
Regarding claims 13-15, “employ,” “are turned on,” “is running,” “provides a stand-by voltage” and “provides power” are improper active method steps in apparatus claims, and the phrase “can be” in claim 14 (two instances) renders it unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are a required configuration or are simply intended use/functionality; for purposes examination, the “can be” phrases will be considered intended use of which any operational microcontroller is capable. Also, the states in claims 13-15 are members of the Markush group of claim 8, such that it is unclear whether claims 13-15 are positively requiring the battery pack to be configured to operate in the states recited therein, or whether these claims only further limit if the states are present in the prior art. Applicant could address this latter issue by amending claims 13-15 to depend on claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 8-15, per paras [0086-87] of the instant specification, an idle state is the second stage of a dual stage activation within a standby mode where some of the components of the battery pack (e.g. a microcontroller) are powered on (but the battery pack is not yet outputting operational power), in contrast to a first stage sleep state where fewer components of the battery pack are powered on, and per para [0098] of the instant specification, an UPS state is one where both a power supply unit and a flow generator are connected to the battery pack and are on/active.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkinson et al. (US 2012/0055340 A1; hereinafter “Wilkinson”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, 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 flow generator housing (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 flow generator (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 comprising, as best understood, 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 UPS state (Fig. 11A; para [0149], when charger 820 is attached/powered and concentrator 100 is attached/on/operating).
Regarding claim 2, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, 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 UPS 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 discloses the battery pack of claim 2, wherein, as best understood, 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 UPS states (Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 4, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, the plurality of power states is based on whether the flow generator 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 UPS state (Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, the plurality of power states is based on whether the flow generator is attached to the battery pack, because the standby mode/sleep state 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 UPS state (Fig. 9 vs Fig. 11A; paras [0135] and [0149]).
Regarding claim 6, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, 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/sleep state (Figs. 9 and 11B; paras [0125], [0135-137], [0146-147]).
Regarding claim 7, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein, as best understood, 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 11, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 8, wherein an operating mode of the battery pack comprises the supply state and the UPS state (Figs. 9 and 11A; paras [0135] and [0149], where the supply state and the UPS state both allow the respiratory therapy device to operate and thus comprehend an operating mode).
Regarding claim 16, Wilkinson discloses a respiratory therapy device (comprising oxygen concentrator system 100) (Figs. 2, 9, 11A) to generate 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]), comprising:
a housing (the housing of 100) (Figs. 2, 9 and 11A);
a flow generator (comprising compressor 210) in the housing to generate the flow of breathable gas (paras [0005], [0066], [0073], [0079], [0086], [0090], [0093], [0182]), the flow generator having an operating voltage (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 (Figs. 9 and 11A; see claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 17, Wilkinson discloses the respiratory therapy device of claim 16, 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) 9, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Vakilian et al. (US 2017/0229860 A1; hereinafter “Vakilian”).
Regarding claim 9, Wilkinson discloses the battery pack of claim 8, wherein the plurality of power states comprises the sleep state, the supply state, the charge state, and the UPS state (see claim 1/8 discussion above), but Wilkinson is silent regarding an idle state. However, Vakilian teaches that it was known in the battery power management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a transitional idle state (valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor is powered on but power is not yet outputted to the connected device 18/418, which can be a medical device per para [0017]) between a sleep state (power down/idle mode, where valid signal detector 22/422/microprocessor is not powered) and a supply state (operational power mode, i.e. where power is supplied to the connected device) (Figs. 1-4; paras [0028], [0034-35], [0038-40]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilkinson to include an idle state as taught by Vakilian, in order to provide the predictable result of a two-stage activation from sleep to avoid false wake-ups in order to 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 the converter/supplying power to the outlet.
Regarding claim 10, Wilkinson in view of Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim [9], wherein modified Wilkinson teaches wherein a stand-by mode of the battery pack comprises the sleep state, the charge state, and the idle state (see claims 1 and 9 discussions above, wherein the respiratory therapy device is not powered by the battery pack in the sleep/charge/idle states and thus they comprehend a stand-by mode).
Regarding claim 13, Wilkinson in view of Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim [9], wherein Vakilian further educates modified Wilkinson to include wherein the idle state and the sleep state employ latching circuits to enable/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/standard means for predictably inducing the sleep state and providing the two-stage activation from sleep discussed above regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Wilkinson in view of Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim [9], wherein Vakilian further educates modified Wilkinson to include wherein, in the sleep state, the battery pack provides a stand-by voltage to its output terminals and provides power to a pilot detect module (comprising low power detector 20) (Vakilian Figs. 1-2; paras [0021] and [0024-25]), in order to utilize known means for predictably providing the two-stage activation from sleep discussed above regarding claim 9.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Vakilian and Campbell et al. (US 2014/0225620 A1; hereinafter “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 12, Wilkinson in view of 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, 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 Vakilian as applied to claim 13, OR, in the alternative, further in view of Bordewick et al. (US 2008/0099017 A1; hereinafter “Bordewick”).
Regarding claim 14, Wilkinson in view of Vakilian teaches the battery pack of claim 13, wherein Vakilian further educates 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 turned on without turning on the converter (see claim 9 discussion above, where Vakilian teaches turning on a valid signal detector/microprocessor via a lower power detector before supplying power to the connected device/turning on the converter of Wilkinson), and a microcontroller of the battery pack is running (the valid signal detector/microprocessor taught by Vakilian to be included in modified Wilkinson is operational) so that it can display status on a user interface and it can communicate externally on a controller area network bus, and internally on a system management bus (the microcontroller of modified Wilkinson is fully capable of performing the claimed intended used because it is a microcontroller). In the alternative, for purposes of compact prosecution in the event that a display/display status/user interface, external area network bus and internal system management bus are positively recited, 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 Wilkinson 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references regarding battery packs and/or battery operation in respiratory devices: Carter et al. (US 2011/0126829 A1); Oberle et al. (US 2006/0181153 A1); Hickle (US 2004/0119341 A1); Farbarik (US 2007/0273216 A1); Nieves-Ramirez (US 7,252,088 B1); Robbins (US 4,466,433); Truschel et al. (US 2011/0197882 A1). Additional references regarding known power states for batteries: Nasiri et al. (US 2017/0085122 A1); van Phuoc et al. (US 5,652,502); Bucur et al. (US 2006/0197498 A1); Cassidy (US 2008/0290731 A1); Chung et al. (US 2013/0241509 A1); Ettes (US 5,341,085); Friel et al. (US 6,025,695); Hibi (US 6,208,117 B1); Hull et al. (US 5,606,242); Hwang (US 2,747,977); Ishii (US 2009/0153124 A1); Kanakasabai et al. (US 2017/0077746 A1); Layman et al. (US 5,712,795); Majid et al. (US 5,852,550); Malik et al. (US 7,698,585 B2); McClure (US 5,563,496); Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0085010 A1).
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-Th 7:30a-4:30p, F 7:30a-11:30a 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