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 October 04, 2023 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/259412, filed June 27 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. More specifically, Claims 27 and 39 are directed to processor-readable media that cover signals per se, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Step 1, per MPEP 2106.03
Claims 27-38 and 39-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 27-46 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of the Claims 27-38 and 39-46 recites at least one step or instruction for determining the breathing rate and oxygen consumption of a user, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 27-38 and 39-46 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 27 recites: A controller for a breathing apparatus (additional element), the controller comprising:
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein (additional element);
and a processor (an additional element) configured to execute the computer executable instructions, and being further configured to:
store a relationship between a breathing rate of a user of the breathing apparatus and oxygen consumption of the user (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
receive a first output signal from a differential pressure sensor (additional element) configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III),
wherein the first output signal is indicative of the variations in the total gas pressure (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and determine, using the first output signal, an oxygen consumption rate of the user of the breathing apparatus (evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), wherein determining the oxygen consumption rate comprises:
determining a breathing rate of the user from the first output signal (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and determining, based on the breathing rate, the oxygen consumption rate using the relationship between the breathing rate and oxygen consumption of the user (evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 39 recites: A method of operating a breathing apparatus (additional element), the method comprising:
storing a relationship between a breathing rate of a user of the breathing apparatus and oxygen consumption of the user (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
receiving a first output signal from a differential pressure sensor (additional element) in the breathing apparatus, the differential pressure sensor being configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
wherein the first output signal is indicative of variations in the total gas pressure (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and determining, using the first output signal, an oxygen consumption rate of the user of the breathing apparatus (evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), wherein determining the oxygen consumption rate comprises:
determining a breathing rate of the user from the first output signal (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and determining, based on the breathing rate, the oxygen consumption rate using the relationship between the breathing rate and oxygen consumption of the user (evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
The above limitations appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations and/or certain methods of human activity because the accessing of signals and computing estimate limitations are drawn to abstract ideas. They fall under mental processes based on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. An individual could access, observe, and record the signals generated by a breathing apparatus, and write them down with a pencil and paper. The individual could then mentally compute a breathing rate and oxygen consumption of a user based on the written observations. Conversely, they could utilize a computer to perform this mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B), (III)(C)
Further, dependent Claims 29, 32, 35-38, 41, and 44-46 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 27 and 39 (and their respective dependent Claims 29, 32, 35-38, 41, and 44-46) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 27 and 39), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
More specifically, the additional elements of:
a breathing apparatus,
a controller,
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein,
a processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions,
and a differential pressure sensor configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus
are generically recited elements in independent Claims 27 and 39 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 22, 25, 28 and 29 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more processors or a controller as claimed).
In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 27 and 39 (and their identified respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claims 27 and 39 (and their respective identified dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). However, Claims 28, 30, 31, and 33-34 are patent eligible because the additional element of controlling the partial pressure of oxygen in the breathing apparatus is more than mere extra-solution activity.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 27 and 39 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
a breathing apparatus,
a controller,
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein,
a processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions,
and a differential pressure sensor configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Page 24 of the present disclosure describes the breathing apparatus, referencing known devices, specifically “rebreathers". There are no inventive alterations applied to this element, it simply is a field of use for the generic functions performed by the controller. This limitation only provides a source for the data, with the controller accessing the data and performing routine and conventional calculations.
Likewise, Page 4, lines 16-24 describes the pressure sensor, denoting it as “any suitable sensor for detecting variations” in total gas pressure. As with the breathing apparatus, there is no inventive alteration being applied to either sensor to integrate them with the abstract idea, and they pose solely as a field of use.
The additional limitations regarding the memory serve to provide a source for storing the data, with the processor accessing the data and performing calculations. These are routine, conventional processing functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). In light of the disclosure, the processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device, and simply links the abstract idea to the field of use of a breathing apparatus. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 27 and 39 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and methods of Claims 27 and 39 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 27 and 39 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). The breathing apparatus used in conjunction with the sensors serves only to provide a standard, non-inventive data gathering source. There were no inventive alterations applied to those features. Likewise, the inclusion of the processor and memory are general computer elements that simply store and analyze said data using generic computer functions.
Thus, when viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 27 and 39 (and their respective identified dependent claims) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly:
a. Claims 27 and 39 (and dependent claims 29, 32, 35-38, 41, and 44-46) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
and dependent Claims 28, 30, 31, and 33-34 are patent eligible because the additional element of controlling the partial pressure of oxygen in the breathing apparatus is more than mere extra-solution activity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-46 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious:
receive a first output signal from a differential pressure sensor configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus,
wherein the first output signal is indicative of the variations in the total gas pressure;
and determine, using the first output signal, an oxygen consumption rate of the user of the breathing apparatus, wherein determining the oxygen consumption rate comprises:
determining a breathing rate of the user from the first output signal;
and determining, based on the breathing rate, the oxygen consumption rate using the relationship between the breathing rate and oxygen consumption of the user.
Gauthier et al. (US 20200001956 A1, hereinafter “Gauthier”) discloses: A controller for a breathing apparatus (Paragraph 0034, A novel removable electronics pod attached to the mixing chamber contains all the control electronics, battery, oxygen sensor, oxygen valve, pressure sensors, RF electronics, and wireless charging circuits. If the Lung were to need service, a single plug-in pod is exchanged to refresh all electronics, battery, and sensors. An advantage over the prior art is that all failure prone interconnect wires and connectors to critical components are eliminated), the controller comprising:
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein and a processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions (Paragraph 0106, The memory ,device used in each FRU is an energy harvesting design, meaning the memory does not have its own energy source, such as a battery, but rather collects radio frequency energy from the environment, which is then converted and stored in a capacitor. This is advantageous as no battery or external connections are needed, reducing the size, cost, and service life of the device. The memory is secure, having a processor with cryptographic algorithms and sections of one-time programmable memory, read-write memory, and secure key), and being further configured to:
store a relationship (Paragraph 0088, The oxygen sensor shown in Fig. D12(1) is mounted in the breathing gas flow and measures the partial pressure of oxygen in the breathing gas) between a breathing rate of a user of the breathing apparatus (Paragraph 0101, Additional data may be added to the integration using the calculated respiration tidal volume calculated from the differential pressure sensor, as shown in flowchart Fig. F9) and oxygen consumption of the user (Paragraph 0025, The oxygen partial pressure, absolute pressure, and temperature sensors are used by the software and algorithms to determine if the oxygen partial pressure is too high, too low, or in the correct range for the current depth and mode of operation), (Paragraph 0077, Reading the oxygen and diluant pressures assures adequate volumes of gas are present. The software tests and validates the oxygen injector valve using power measurements and confirming gas flow. The software tests and calibrates the ambient pressure sensor using the redundant sensor in the Smartphone to validate and/or calibrate the sensor in the electronics pod. The system tests, validates, and calibrates the oxygen sensor using the calibration shutter and the oxygen injector valve),;
receive a first output signal from a differential pressure sensor (Paragraph 0139, The differential pressure sensor Fig D8(10) and loop pressure sensor Fig. D12(3) detect the breathing cycle of the trainee along with pressure changes in the breathing loop, validating the integrity of the breathing loop) configured to detect variations in a total gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus, wherein the first output signal is indicative of the variations in the total gas pressure (Paragraph 0088, If oxygen is needed, the oxygen valve shown in Fig. D12(2) opens and injects oxygen into the mixing chamber. Absolute pressure sensor Fig. D12(4) measures the pressure in the mixing chamber. If the pressure in the mixing chamber is below the ambient delta threshold value, the diluant valve shown in Fig. D2(9) and Fig. D11(7) opens and injects diluant gas into the mixing chamber from the diluant bladder shown in Fig. D2(111));
Gur et al. (US 20170283020 A1, hereinafter “Gurr”) discloses: A controller for a breathing apparatus (Paragraph 0002, The present invention relates generally to diving systems and more particularly to systems and apparatuses for controlling and monitoring rebreather systems and managing the use of dive resources), the controller comprising:
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein and a processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions (Paragraph 0070, A processor in accordance with certain embodiments of this invention is capable of being programmed by a user with various user-defined parameters and incorporates a display and buttons, keys, switches or similar articles suitable for inputting information to the processor. The processor is implemented, in accordance with the invention, as a microprocessor, microcontroller, digital signal processing circuit or firmware programmed to receive measurement data and perform calculations), and being further configured to:
store a relationship between a breathing rate of a user of the breathing apparatus and oxygen consumption of the user (Paragraph 0099, The maximum theoretical partial pressure of oxygen, or PPO2, available to the diver in the breathing loop at any depth is calculated as the product of the concentration of oxygen, or FO2, in the oxygen-enriched gas mixture supply and the ambient pressure, or Pambient. Because Pambient varies with depth, the partial pressure of oxygen for the gas supply also varies with depth and reaches a maximum value at the maximum depth of a dive. To maintain the maximum partial pressure of oxygen, or PPO2(max), at safe levels during the course of a dive, in certain embodiments, the diver may select a gas supply for which the maximum partial pressure of oxygen will not exceed a selected threshold);
receive a first output signal from a pressure sensor configured to detect variations in a gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus (Paragraph 0026, The gas supply may be an oxygen-enriched gas mixture, further comprising selecting a gas supply having a concentration of oxygen for which partial pressure of oxygen in the gas supply will not exceed a selected value at a maximum planned dive depth);
Raymaeckers (US 20200094929 A1) discloses A controller for a breathing apparatus (0074] The system is controlled by a control unit denoted by 90. The control unit 90 generates the control signals of the supply solenoid valve 80 based on the measurement signals of the various sensors that are provided in the system and that are not depicted separately from each other but cumulatively by the boxes 100, in order not to complicate the figure), the controller comprising:
a memory having computer-executable instructions stored therein and a processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions (Paragraph 0112, In particular, in this example showing the most complete diagnostic system at step 220, a functional check of the processor is carried out. The memory operation is checked at step 230. The functionality of the sensors is checked at step 240), and being further configured to:
store a relationship between a breathing rate of a user of the breathing apparatus and oxygen consumption of the user (Paragraph 0046, According to an embodiment, the electronic control unit executes a control program by means of which said electronic control unit and the sensors are set to detect at least one or more of the following values or combinations of the following values: breathing gas pressure, oxygen level in the first breathing bag and/or second breathing bag, carbon dioxide level in the first breathing bag and/or second breathing bag, depletion level of the carbon dioxide canister, pressure of the replenishment gas in the tank, and which control program sets the control unit to determine the amount of replenishment gas to be supplied in the circuit necessary to replenish a predetermined oxygen level in the breathing gas mixture and to generate control signals for the supply unit corresponding to an actuation of said supply unit for feeding said amount of replenishment gas to be supplied in the circuit, necessary to replenish a predetermined oxygen level in the breathing gas mixture);
receive a first output signal from a pressure sensor configured to detect variations in a gas pressure of a gas mixture in the breathing apparatus (Paragraphs 0077-0080, [0077] Two sensors are preferably provided for measuring the oxygen concentration: a sensor for measuring the ambient pressure; a sensor for measuring the oxygen partial pressure; and the oxygen fraction, which is the measure of interest in a semi-closed rebreather, can be obtained from these two measurements),
and determine, using the first output signal, an oxygen consumption rate of the user of the breathing apparatus (Paragraph 0094, The sensors 100 measuring the O2 concentration actually present in the breathing gas mixture can be provided both in the first and the second breathing bags or in the branches connected thereto which lead to the mouthpiece and the values determined by these sensors are used to determine the amount of replenishment gas mixture to be introduced in the second breathing bag 40 in order to bring the oxygen concentration in the breathing gas mixture back to the value of the predetermined setpoint)
None of the prior art of record (applied individually or in combination) teaches the determination of the oxygen consumption rate using variations in the total gas pressure, the breathing rate, and the oxygen consumption, nor does the prior art render said limitation obvious. Modifying any of the above prior arts or a particular combination of them in order to incorporate the specific claimed functions would not be an obvious modification. As such, no prior art rejection was made for Claims 27 and 39 (and subsequent dependent claims)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISHAL Z HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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) 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.
/MISHAL HUSSAIN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights