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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023, 09/30/2024, and 01/02/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwaibold et al. 2015/0277733
Regarding claim 9, Schwaibold teaches a portable display unit for a breathing assistance apparatus (the abstract states “The disclosed device serves for artificial respiration”), the portable display unit comprising: a display unit housing (Figure 3a, front unit 1A along with blower box 5); a screen (Indicating device 2); and a cable (Cable 20) configured for physically tethering the portable display unit with a base unit of the breathing assistance apparatus (Figure 11, polysomnography device (PSD) 19).
Regarding claim 10, Schwaibold teaches the portable display unit according to claim 9, wherein the cable is resiliently flexible and/or is retractable (Figure 11 depicts a flexible cable).
Regarding claim 14, Schwaibold teaches the portable display unit according to claim 9, further comprising at least one connection feature for removably connecting the portable display unit to the base unit (Cable 20 in figure 11 is a connection feature that does removably connect the display unit to the base unit 19).
Claims 15-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fidacaro et al. 2015/0277733
Regarding claim 15, Fidacaro teaches a portable display unit (display unit 110) for a breathing assistance apparatus having a base unit (0057 states “in some embodiments, the sensors 126 and ports 122 can be configured to deliver information to the module 112 regarding one or more of the electrical activity of the heart, body temperature, blood pressure, venous oxygen concentration, and carbon dioxide concentration of the patient 128 “), the portable display unit comprising: a display unit housing (Figure 2, housing 130); a screen (Screen 202); a communication interface configured for communicating data between the base unit and the portable display unit (0043 states “The coupling between the module 112 and the display unit 110, or between the display unit 110 and the base 114, can be mechanical, electrical, optical, and/or of any other suitable variety. For example, the coupling can be for physical union, communication, and/or power transfer.”); and at least one connection feature configured for removably connecting the portable display unit to the base unit (0043 states “the display unit 110 can be configured to selectively couple with and decouple from the base 114” Display Unit 110 has a connection unit that allows coupling to base 114.).
Regarding claim 16, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 15, wherein the at least one connection feature is arranged to removably connect the portable display unit to a housing of the base unit (0050 states “The actuators 147, 149 can be used to decouple the display unit 110 from the base 114.”).
Regarding claim 17, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 16, wherein the at least one connection feature is arranged to removably connect the portable display unit to the housing of the base unit by a sliding action of the portable display unit relative to the base unit (0065 states “this arrangement can facilitate the coupling and decoupling of the module 112 to and from the docking region 120 of the display unit 110.” The activation of actuators 147 and 149 allows for a sliding like movement as the display unit is removed.).
Regarding claim 18, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 15, further comprising at least one support feature for supporting the portable display unit on a support surface (0063 states “the base 114 is coupled to a mounting strip 232”, meaning that the base 114 has a method of connection to Mounting strip 232, figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 18, wherein the at least one support feature and the at least one connection feature are provided by the same structural element (Both the support feature to strip 232 and the connection feature on display unit 110 are a part of the overall structure containing a combination of 114 and 110.). Regarding claim 20, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 18, wherein the at least one support feature is arranged to support the portable display unit on a substantially horizontal support surface or on a medical pole (Figure 2 depicts the support strip arranged as a medical pole).
Regarding claim 23, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 15, wherein the communication interface comprises at least one wire or wire connector for communicating the data and/or control signals between the portable display unit and the base unit (0044 states “The module 112 includes a plurality of connectors or ports 122a, 122b, 122c, 122d, 122e, 122f, which can be configured to couple with one or more wires or cables 124a, 124b. As further discussed below, the cables 124 can extend between the ports 122 and one or more sensors 126a, 126b”).
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaibold further in view of Fidacaro et al. 2011/0054267 Regarding claim 11, Schwaibold teaches the portable display unit according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cable is configured for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit. Fidacaro teaches an analogous patient monitoring display module that does teach wherein the cable is configured for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit (0044 states “The module 112 includes a plurality of connectors or ports 122a, 122b, 122c, 122d, 122e, 122f, which can be configured to couple with one or more wires or cables 124a, 124b. As further discussed below, the cables 124 can extend between the ports 122 and one or more sensors 126a, 126b”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwaibold with the teachings of Fidacaro and include wherein the cable is configured for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit as this allows for communication (0043).
Regarding claim 12, Schwaibold teaches the portable display unit according to claim 9, but fails to teach further comprising at least one wire for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit. Fidacaro does teach at least one wire for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit (0061 states “the display unit 110 can receive power from the base 114, which itself can receive power from a power source 220 via a power line or cord 222. The power source 220 can comprise, for example, the AC wiring of a hospital”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwaibold with the teachings of Fidacaro and include at least one wire for communicating power to the portable display unit from the base unit and/or for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit as this allows for power transfer to take place.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaibold further in view of Beinart et al. WO 2020/136271
Regarding claim 13, Schwaibold teaches the portable display unit according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising a wireless communication interface for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit. Beinart teaches an analogous system display device that does teach a wireless communication interface for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit (Page 21 states “The monitor mount 160 can additionally include a communications interface 166 which allows the monitor mount 160 to directly or indirectly access one or more computing networks. The communications interface 166 can include various network cards / interfaces to enable wired and wireless communications with such computing networks”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwaibold with the teachings of Beinart and include a wireless communication interface for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit as this is a common method of data communication.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidacaro further in view of Nadoiski et al. 2018/0318487
Regarding claim 21, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 18, but fails to teach wherein the at least one support feature is arranged to enable an angle of the screen to be adjusted relative to the support surface. Nadoiski teaches an analogous medical display system that does teach wherein the at least one support feature is arranged to enable an angle of the screen to be adjusted relative to the support surface (Figure 6 depicts the angle of the display screen being adjusted with respect to a surface of housing 12). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fidacaro with the teachings of Nadoiski and include wherein the at least one support feature is arranged to enable an angle of the screen to be adjusted relative to the support surface as this allows for the display screen to be adequality adjusted for the comfort of the user.
Regarding claim 22, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein an angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the display unit housing or wherein the angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the at least one connection feature. Nadoiski does teach wherein an angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the display unit housing or wherein the angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the at least one connection feature (Figure 6 depicts the angle of the display screen changing with respect to base 32). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fidacaro with the teachings of Nadoiski and include wherein an angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the display unit housing or wherein the angular orientation of the screen is configured to be adjusted relative to the at least one connection feature as this allows for the display screen to be adequality adjusted for the comfort of the user.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidacaro further in view of Beinart
Regarding claim 24, Fidacaro teaches the portable display unit according to claim 15, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless communication interface for communicating the data and/or control signals between the portable display unit and the base unit. Beinart teaches an analogous system display device that does teach wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless communication interface for communicating the data and/or control signals between the portable display unit and the base unit (Page 21 states “The monitor mount 160 can additionally include a communications interface 166 which allows the monitor mount 160 to directly or indirectly access one or more computing networks. The communications interface 166 can include various network cards/interfaces to enable wired and wireless communications with such computing networks”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fidacaro with the teachings of Beinart and include a wireless communication interface for communicating data between the portable display unit and the base unit as this is a common method of data communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sing et al. 2021/0187223
Bonezar et al. 2017/0021080
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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 S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785