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 .
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(s) 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries et al. (US20160279375), hereafter DeVries, in view of Geffen (WO0045883), hereafter Geffen.
Regarding Claim 1, DeVries discloses a ventilator (par. 0110, a ventilator 100) comprising: at least one motorized proportional valve actuator (par. 0300, the first rotary valve assembly 306; See par. 0303, the valve output is directly proportional to an electric signal from control system 220, therefore it is a proportional valve actuator), each motorized proportional valve actuator comprising a stepper motor (par. 0300, stepper motor 833) and an actuator (par. 0303, “The cam 850 rotates with the shaft 836 as the motor assembly 830 (see FIG. 10A) rotates the shaft 836”), the actuator connected to the stepper motor and configured to output pressurized air by controlling a pressure on a valve diaphragm (par. 0321, “As the cam 850 rotates, it pushes opposing ones of the poppet valves CV1-CV4 outwardly opening them”; par. 0312, “A ring-shaped diaphragm 886 may extend around the pushrod 880 near the proximal end portion 881”) (Examiner Notes: See par. 312-321, Fig. 10A-E, the stepper motor causes the cam 850 to rotate, which then actuates the pushrod 880 which has a valve diaphragm 886; therefore, the actuator controls the pressure on a diaphragm), a conduit providing for fluid communication of the pressurized air (See Fig. 7A, par. 0114, “The patient oxygen outlet 105 is configured to provide doses or pulses of oxygen 140 to the patient connection 106 (via the patient circuit 110)”; a conduit is shown in Fig. 7A connected to the valve) to a breathing apparatus (Fig. 1, 7A, par. 0114, a patient circuit is a breathing apparatus to deliver oxygen to the patient); and a sensor arrangement in fluid communication with the conduit between the at least one motorized proportional valve actuator and the breathing apparatus (par. 0346, 0378, discloses position sensor and oxygen sensor).
DeVries further discloses on the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold (Fig. 7A, oxygen assembly 210, the oxygen assembly is part of the ventilator and receives gas from patient air intake and output it to the patient, therefore it is an intake manifold), configured to output a restricted flow of air from the pressurized air transported in the conduit (par. 0114), but is silent on (ii) a sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of the intake manifold, the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air.
However, Geffen teaches a ventilator (Fig. 1A), comprising of a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1A, sensor package 66), a conduit (Fig. 1A, a conduit is shown for delivering air to the patient), wherein the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold (Fig. 1A, inlet manifold 42) configured to output a restricted flow of air from the pressurized air transported in the conduit (pg. 12, “When element 40 is set to substantially restrict ambient air flow, more oxygen is drawn through the demand valve into an inlet manifold 42”; restricted air is transported into the conduit), and (ii) a sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of the intake manifold (pg. 13, “the gas from inlet manifold 42 is drawn into compressor 52, wherein the gas pressure is increased. A resultant pressure difference across the compressor is measured by a differential pressure sensor 56…”), the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air (pg. 13, 19; the sensor measures air pressure of the restricted flow of air and make adjustments to a valve based on the sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the sensor arrangement of Geffen, to regulate airflow of oxygen to the patient as taught by Geffen (Geffen, pg. 19).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified DeVries discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the sensor device is configured to measure a pressure range of -200 cm H20 to 200 cm H20 and a flow rate range of 0 to 100 L/min (DeVries, par. 0138, “By way of a non-limiting example, the valve assembly 448 may be configured to leak about 20-50 liters per minute (“LPM”) when the pressure inside the passive patient circuit 440 is about 10 centimeters of water (“cmH20”)”; after the modification, the sensor device would be configured to measure the range disclosed by the prior art, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 7, DeVries discloses a central controller (par. 0175, Fig. 4, control system 220) for a ventilator (Fig. 4, ventilator 100) comprising: one or more processors (par. 0351, “the control system 220 includes a memory 700 connected to one or more processors 710”) programmed and/or configured to: receive an input signal from a sensor arrangement (par. 0246, “the oxygen sensor 227 provides an oxygen concentration signal 276 encoding the oxygen concentration value to the control system 220”) in fluid communication with a conduit (par. 0246, “The oxygen sensor 227 is connected to the accumulator 202 and measures an oxygen concentration value of the gas(es) inside the accumulator 202”) between at least one motorized proportional valve actuator (par. 0300, the first rotary valve assembly 306; See par. 0303, the valve output is directly proportional to an electric signal from control system 220, therefore it is a proportional valve actuator) and a breathing apparatus providing for fluid communication of pressurized air to the breathing apparatus (Fig. 1, 7A, par. 0114, a patient circuit is a breathing apparatus to deliver oxygen to the patient), the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold configured to output a restricted flow of air from the pressurized air transported in the conduit (Fig. 7A, par. 0114, oxygen assembly 210, the oxygen assembly is part of the ventilator and receives gas from patient air intake and output it to the patient, therefore it is an intake manifold).
DeVries is silent on (ii) a sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of an intake manifold, the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air;
However, Geffen teaches a ventilator (Fig. 1A), comprising of a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1A, sensor package 66), a conduit (Fig. 1A, a conduit is shown for delivering air to the patient), wherein the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold (Fig. 1A, inlet manifold 42) configured to output a restricted flow of air from the pressurized air transported in the conduit (pg. 12, “When element 40 is set to substantially restrict ambient air flow, more oxygen is drawn through the demand valve into an inlet manifold 42”; restricted air is transported into the conduit), and (ii) a sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of the intake manifold (pg. 13, “the gas from inlet manifold 42 is drawn into compressor 52, wherein the gas pressure is increased. A resultant pressure difference across the compressor is measured by a differential pressure sensor 56…”), the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air (pg. 13, 19; the sensor measures air pressure of the restricted flow of air and make adjustments to a valve based on the sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the sensor arrangement of Geffen, to regulate airflow of oxygen to the patient as taught by Geffen (Geffen, pg. 19).
The modified DeVries further discloses determine an actuator movement based on the input signal (Examiner Notes: Geffen pg. 13, 19 teaches adjusting valve position based on sensor signals, after the modification, the actuation of the valve would be based on the input signal from the sensor arrangement); and communicate an instruction based on the actuator movement (Geffen, pg. 14, “CPU 60 operates a solenoid valve 58… (for example a stepper motor-actuated valve or a digitally-controlled magnetic latching valve)”) to a motorized proportional valve actuator (DeVries, par. 0300, the first rotary valve assembly 306) comprising a stepper motor (DeVries, par. 0300, stepper motor 833) and an actuator (DeVries, par. 0303, “The cam 850 rotates with the shaft 836 as the motor assembly 830 (see FIG. 10A) rotates the shaft 836”), the actuator connected to the stepper motor (DeVries, par. 0300, “The motor assembly 830 includes a stepper motor 833 (see FIG. 7B) and a shaft 836 (see FIGS. 10B and 10C). The stepper motor 833 is configured to rotate the shaft 836”) and configured to output the pressurized air by controlling a pressure on a valve diaphragm (DeVries, Fig. 10E, diaphragm 886 moves to control the pressure), wherein the instruction directs the stepper motor to complete the actuator movement to change the pressure on the valve diaphragm (DeVries, par. 0300, 0312).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified DeVries discloses the central controller of claim 7, wherein the central controller is in communication with a user device (DeVries, par. 0175, user interface 200), wherein the central controller operates the at least one motorized proportional valve actuator based on an input signal received from the user device (DeVries, par. 0175, “The user interface 200 is configured to receive input from a user (e.g., a caregiver, a clinician, and the like associated with the patient 102 depicted in FIG. 1) and provide that input to the control system 220 in the input information 196”; DeVries, Abstract discloses controlling operation based on user input).
Regarding Claim 11, DeVries discloses a method of operating a ventilator (Fig. 12; Fig. 4, ventilator 100), comprising: receiving, with at least one processor (par. 0351, “the control system 220 includes a memory 700 connected to one or more processors 710”), an input signal from at least one sensor arrangement (par. 0246, “the oxygen sensor 227 provides an oxygen concentration signal 276 encoding the oxygen concentration value to the control system 220”) in fluid communication with a conduit (par. 0246, “The oxygen sensor 227 is connected to the accumulator 202 and measures an oxygen concentration value of the gas(es) inside the accumulator 202”), the conduit establishing fluid communication between at least one motorized proportional valve actuator (See Fig. 7A, par. 0114, “The patient oxygen outlet 105 is configured to provide doses or pulses of oxygen 140 to the patient connection 106 (via the patient circuit 110)”; a conduit is shown in Fig. 7A connected to the valve) and a breathing apparatus (Fig. 1, 7A, par. 0114, a patient circuit is a breathing apparatus to deliver oxygen to the patient), the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold configured to output a restricted flow of air from pressurized air transported in the conduit (Fig. 7A, par. 0114, oxygen assembly 210, the oxygen assembly is part of the ventilator and receives gas from patient air intake and output it to the patient, therefore it is an intake manifold).
DeVries is silent on (ii) at least one sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of the intake manifold, the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air
However, Geffen teaches a ventilator (Fig. 1A), comprising of a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1A, sensor package 66), a conduit (Fig. 1A, a conduit is shown for delivering air to the patient), wherein the sensor arrangement comprising: (i) an intake manifold (Fig. 1A, inlet manifold 42) configured to output a restricted flow of air from the pressurized air transported in the conduit (pg. 12, “When element 40 is set to substantially restrict ambient air flow, more oxygen is drawn through the demand valve into an inlet manifold 42”; restricted air is transported into the conduit), and (ii) a sensor device in fluid communication with an outlet of the intake manifold (pg. 13, “the gas from inlet manifold 42 is drawn into compressor 52, wherein the gas pressure is increased. A resultant pressure difference across the compressor is measured by a differential pressure sensor 56…”), the sensor device configured to measure an air pressure of the conduit based on the restricted flow of air (pg. 13, 19; the sensor measures air pressure of the restricted flow of air and make adjustments to a valve based on the sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the sensor arrangement of Geffen, to regulate airflow of oxygen to the patient as taught by Geffen (Geffen, pg. 19).
The modified DeVries further discloses adjusting, with at least one processor, a stepper motor (DeVries, par. 0300, stepper motor 833) of a motorized proportional valve actuator (DeVries, par. 0300, the first rotary valve assembly 306) based on comparing the input signal to a predetermined value (Geffen, pg. 20, “the air pressure across one-way valve 118 is greater than the threshold value”; the prior art teaches comparing the input signal from sensor to a predetermined value), wherein the motorized proportional valve actuator comprises an actuator connected to the stepper motor (DeVries, par. 0300, “The motor assembly 830 includes a stepper motor 833 (see FIG. 7B) and a shaft 836 (see FIGS. 10B and 10C). The stepper motor 833 is configured to rotate the shaft 836”), the actuator configured to output pressurized air by controlling a pressure on a valve diaphragm (DeVries, Fig. 10E, diaphragm 886 moves to control the pressure).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified DeVries discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor device is configured to measure a pressure range of -200 cm H2O to 200 cm H2O and a flow rate range of 0 to 100 L/min (DeVries, par. 0138, “By way of a non-limiting example, the valve assembly 448 may be configured to leak about 20-50 liters per minute (“LPM”) when the pressure inside the passive patient circuit 440 is about 10 centimeters of water (“cmH20”)”; after the modification, the sensor device would be configured to measure the range disclosed by the prior art, which is within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Geffen, further in view of Landis et al. (US20160367779), hereafter Landis.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified DeVries discloses the ventilator of claim 1, further comprising a processor in communication with the sensor device (DeVries, par. 0351 discloses a control system comprising of a processor 710, par. 0346, 0378, discloses position sensor and oxygen sensor; Geffen, Fig. 1A, the sensor arrangement is connected to CPU), but is silent on the processor configured to determine a temperature compensation and a humidity compensation.
However, Landis teaches a high flow therapy (HFT) device (Fig. 15, par. 0187), comprising of a processor (par. 0011, a microprocessor), wherein the processor configured to determine a temperature compensation and a humidity compensation (par. 0187, “allows for control of gas flow, gas oxygen concentration, gas temperature, and gas humidity…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the processor of Landis, to control and deliver heated and humidified respiratory gas as taught by Landis (Landis, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified DeVries discloses the method of claim 11, but is silent on further comprising determining, with at least one processor, a temperature compensation and a humidity compensation of the at least one sensor device.
However, Landis teaches a high flow therapy (HFT) device (Fig. 15, par. 0187), comprising of a processor (par. 0011, a microprocessor), determining, with at least one processor, a temperature compensation and a humidity compensation (par. 0187, “allows for control of gas flow, gas oxygen concentration, gas temperature, and gas humidity…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the processor of Landis, to control and deliver heated and humidified respiratory gas as taught by Landis (Landis, Abstract).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Geffen, further in view of Selander (WO2016209129), hereafter Selander.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified DeVries discloses the ventilator of Claim 1, wherein the motorized proportional valve actuator comprises a plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators (Fig. 7A, par. 0308, CV1-CV4), but is silent on comprising an oxygen proportional valve configured to adjust oxygen concentration levels, an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air.
However, Geffen further teaches an oxygen proportional valve configured to adjust oxygen concentration levels (pg. 3, “a setting of regulating means (e.g., linear actuator or a worm gear) coupled to the ambient air input valve in order to achieve a desired oxygen concentration”). DeVries already teaches the plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators are coupled to an oxygen source (See DeVries, Fig. 7A, the valve assembly 306 is connected to air intake 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the oxygen valve of Geffen, to achieve specific oxygen concentration as taught by Geffen (Geffen, pg. 3).
The modified DeVries is still silent on an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air.
However, Selander further teaches a ventilator device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air (pg. 19, line 3-6, “The ventilator 1 further comprises an inspiratory valve 1 1 for regulating the pressure and/or flow of breathing gas delivered to the patient 3, and an expiratory valve 13 for regulating an expiratory pressure applied to the patient 3 during expiration”). DeVries already teaches the plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators are coupled to an expiratory outlet and an inspiratory outlet (DeVries, Fig. 7A, the valve assembly 306 is connected to outlet 122 and 105 for inspiration and exhalation). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the inspiratory and expiratory valve of Selander, to adjust pressure in the ventilator and ensure compliance of the gas as taught by Selander (Selander, pg. 8, line 4-9).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified DeVries discloses The ventilator of claim 4, wherein the inspiratory proportional valve actuator is configured to operate in an inspiratory range of 0-120 cm H2O and the expiratory pressure motorized proportional valve actuator is configured to operate in an expiratory range of 0-25 cm H2O (DeVries, par. 0138, “By way of a non-limiting example, the valve assembly 448 may be configured to leak about 20-50 liters per minute (“LPM”) when the pressure inside the passive patient circuit 440 is about 10 centimeters of water (“cmH20”)”; the range disclosed by the prior art is within the claimed range; After the modification, the valves would work in the range corresponds to the ranged disclosed by DeVries).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified DeVries discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the motorized proportional valve actuator comprises a plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators (Fig. 7A, par. 0308, CV1-CV4), but is silent on including an oxygen proportional valve configured to adjust oxygen concentration levels, an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air.
However, Geffen further teaches an oxygen proportional valve configured to adjust oxygen concentration levels (pg. 3, “a setting of regulating means (e.g., linear actuator or a worm gear) coupled to the ambient air input valve in order to achieve a desired oxygen concentration”). DeVries already teaches the plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators are coupled to an oxygen source (See DeVries, Fig. 7A, the valve assembly 306 is connected to air intake 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the oxygen valve of Geffen, to achieve specific oxygen concentration as taught by Geffen (Geffen, pg. 3).
The modified DeVries is still silent on an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air.
However, Selander further teaches a ventilator device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an inspiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of inspiratory air, and an expiratory proportional valve configured to adjust air pressure of expiratory air (pg. 19, line 3-6, “The ventilator 1 further comprises an inspiratory valve 1 1 for regulating the pressure and/or flow of breathing gas delivered to the patient 3, and an expiratory valve 13 for regulating an expiratory pressure applied to the patient 3 during expiration”). DeVries already teaches the plurality of motorized proportional valve actuators are coupled to an expiratory outlet and an inspiratory outlet (DeVries, Fig. 7A, the valve assembly 306 is connected to outlet 122 and 105 for inspiration and exhalation). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the inspiratory and expiratory valve of Selander, to adjust pressure in the ventilator and ensure compliance of the gas as taught by Selander (Selander, pg. 8, line 4-9).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified DeVries discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the inspiratory pressure motorized proportional valve actuator is configured to operate in an inspiratory range of 0-120 cm H2O and the expiratory pressure motorized proportional valve actuator is configured to operate in an expiratory range of 0-25 cm H2O (DeVries, par. 0138, “By way of a non-limiting example, the valve assembly 448 may be configured to leak about 20-50 liters per minute (“LPM”) when the pressure inside the passive patient circuit 440 is about 10 centimeters of water (“cmH20”)”; the range disclosed by the prior art is within the claimed range; After the modification, the valves would work in the range corresponds to the ranged disclosed by DeVries).
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Geffen, further in view of Shahar et al. (US20190054265), hereafter Shahar.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified DeVries discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the intake manifold comprises an inspiratory conduit (Fig. 7A, conduit at 140 is an inspiratory conduit) and an expiratory conduit (Fig. 7A, outlet vent 124 and the conduit directed to it), the inspiratory conduit being independent of the expiratory conduit (Fig. 7A).
The modified DeVries is silent on the intake manifold comprises a top plate and a bottom plate, wherein connecting the top plate to the bottom plate forms an inspiratory conduit and an expiratory conduit.
However, Shahar teaches a ventilation system (Fig. 1A), comprising of an intake manifold (Fig. 1A, manifold assembly 40), wherein the intake manifold comprises a top plate and a bottom plate (Examiner Notes: See par. 0054, 0072, the prior art teaches conduits inside the manifold are tunnels created within the walls of the manifold, therefore there exists a top wall and a bottom wall, corresponding to top plate and bottom plate, which then forms the conduits), wherein connecting the top plate to the bottom plate forms an inspiratory conduit (Fig. 1A, inspiratory conduit comprising of inspiratory valve 42) and an expiratory conduit (Fig. 1A, expiratory conduit comprising of exhalation valve controller 84). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the intake manifold of Shahar, to eliminate the need for tubes and conduits and minimize the size and weight of the manifold as taught by Shahar.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified DeVries discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the intake manifold comprises an inspiratory conduit (Fig. 7A, conduit at 140 is an inspiratory conduit) and an expiratory conduit (Fig. 7A, outlet vent 124 and the conduit directed to it), the inspiratory conduit being independent of the expiratory conduit (Fig. 7A).
The modified DeVries is silent on the intake manifold comprises a top plate and a bottom plate, wherein connecting the top plate to the bottom plate forms an inspiratory conduit and an expiratory conduit.
However, Shahar teaches a ventilation system (Fig. 1A), comprising of an intake manifold (Fig. 1A, manifold assembly 40), wherein the intake manifold comprises a top plate and a bottom plate (Examiner Notes: See par. 0054, 0072, the prior art teaches conduits inside the manifold are tunnels created within the walls of the manifold, therefore there exists a top wall and a bottom wall, corresponding to top plate and bottom plate, which then forms the conduits), wherein connecting the top plate to the bottom plate forms an inspiratory conduit (Fig. 1A, inspiratory conduit comprising of inspiratory valve 42) and an expiratory conduit (Fig. 1A, expiratory conduit comprising of exhalation valve controller 84). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the intake manifold of Shahar, to eliminate the need for tubes and conduits and minimize the size and weight of the manifold as taught by Shahar.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Geffen, further in view of Shah (US10638999), hereafter Shah.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified DeVries discloses the central controller of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the central controller is wireless and arranged remote from the ventilator, and configured to be in wireless communication with at least one motorized proportional valve actuator of at least two ventilators.
However, Shah teaches a central controller for multiple medical devices (Abstract, col. 17, line 14-16, “a system 500 for facilitating coordinated functioning of the plurality of medical devices 402 over the network 104”), the medical devices includes ventilators (col. 17, line 8-10, “the devices 402 can include, for example, a blood pressure (BP) cuff, X-ray machine, a ventilator”), wherein the central controller is wireless and arranged remote from the ventilator (col. 8, line 30-32, “The communication network 104 may include one or more wireless communications network”), and configured to be in wireless communication with at least one valve actuator of at least two ventilators (col. 17 line 8-10 discloses the central controller communicating with at least two ventilators; col.5 line 2, col. 30 line 63 – col. 31 line 15 discloses valve actuators in the ventilator; col. 29 line 49-57 discloses the central controller controlling the functioning of the ventilators). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the central controller of Shah, to control multiple ventilator wirelessly for convenience as taught by Shah (Shah, Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Geffen, further in view of Feng (WO2020107694, machine translation accessed 10/15/2025 relied upon herein).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified DeVries discloses the central controller of claim 7, but is silent on wherein determining an actuator movement based on the input signal is determined based on a machine learning algorithm.
However, Feng teaches a control system of a ventilator device (par. 0055, Fig. 1), the system receives an input signal from a sensor arrangement (par. 0055, pressure difference sensor, flow sensor) wherein determining an actuator movement based on the input signal (par. 0055, “…proportional valve… so the pressure and flow can be continuously controlled by changing the input electrical signal. In the present application, the low-pressure electromagnetic proportional valve receives the current signal output by the neural network model to continuously control the ventilator flow.”) is determined based on a machine learning algorithm (par. 0045, 0055, the signals are processed by Elman neural network model, which is a machine learning algorithm). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known ventilator of DeVries, with the control system of Feng, and determine the input signal based on machine learning for optimal values as taught by Feng (Feng, par. 0045, 0055).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785