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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 9/13/2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-18 were cancelled and new claims 19-37 were added. Thus, claims 19-37 are presently pending in this application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 19-25, 27, 31-32, and 34-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, lines 3, 7, 9, 11, the term “A” is suggested to be changed to --a-- in order to fix grammatical error.
In claim 19, line 22, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 19, line 23, the term “the first and the second source-linking aperture” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second source-linking apertures-- or --the first source-linking aperture and the second source-linking aperture-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 19, lines 24-25, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 20, line 2, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 21, lines 2-3, the term “the first and the second source-linking aperture” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second source-linking apertures-- or --the first source-linking aperture and the second source-linking aperture-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 21, line 4, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 22, lines 1-2, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 23, lines 1-2, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 24, lines 2 and 6, the term “The first stack” is suggested to be changed to --the first stack-- in order to fix grammatical error.
In claim 25, lines 1-2, the term “the first and the second outside section” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second outside sections-- or --the first outside section and the second outside section-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 27, lines 3 and 8, the term “the first and the second valve body” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second valve bodies-- or --the first valve body and the second valve body-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 27, lines 14-18, the term “the first and third cavity region” is suggested to be changed to --the first and third cavity regions-- or --the first cavity region and the third cavity region-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 27, lines 19-20, the term “the second and fourth cavity region” is suggested to be changed to --the second and fourth cavity regions-- or --the second cavity region and the third cavity region-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 27, line 22, the term “Where” is suggested to be changed to --where-- in order to fix grammatical error.
In claim 27, line 25, the term “Where” is suggested to be changed to --where-- in order to fix grammatical error.
In claim 27, line 28, the term “Where” is suggested to be changed to --where-- in order to fix grammatical error.
In claim 27, lines 28-32, the term “where that other cavity region out of the first and third cavity region which is not first supply cavity region is as first venting cavity region part of the first venting line but not of the first gas supply line, and where that other cavity region out of the second and fourth cavity region which is not second supply cavity region is as second venting cavity region part of the second venting line but not the second gas supply line” is suggested to be changed to --where the other cavity region out of the first and third cavity regions that is not the first supply cavity region is configured as a first venting cavity region that is part of the first venting line but not of the first gas supply line, and where the other cavity region out of the second and fourth cavity regions that is not the second supply cavity region is configured as a second venting cavity region that is part of the second venting line but not the second gas supply line-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 31, lines 2 and 4, the term “the first and the second valve body” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second valve bodies-- or --the first valve body and the second valve body-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 32, lines 2 and 4, the term “the first and the second valve body” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second valve bodies-- or --the first valve body and the second valve body-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 34, lines 2-3, the term “their first and their second operational position” is suggested to be changed to --the first and the second operational positions of the first valve body and the second valve body-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 35, line 4, the term “of first and second switching-valve assembly” is suggested to be changed to --of the first and second switching-valve assemblies-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 35, line 5-6, the term “of first and second switching-valve assembly” is suggested to be changed to --of the first and second switching-valve assemblies-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 36, lines 4-5, the term “the respiratory gas quantity…the respiratory gas pressure” is suggested to be changed to --a respiratory gas quantity…a respiratory gas pressure-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 37, lines 4-5, the term “the respiratory gas quantity…the respiratory gas pressure” is suggested to be changed to --a respiratory gas quantity…a respiratory gas pressure-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitations “mechanical pre-tensioning devices” (claim 34, lines 4-5, the term “devices” is a generic placeholder and the function is “mechanical pre-tensioning”), “a flow modification device for modifying the respiratory gas quantity” (claims 36 and 37, lines 3-4, the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function is “flow modification” and “for modifying the respiratory gas quantity”), “a control device for controlling the operation of the flow modification device” (claims 36 and 37, line 6, the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function is “control” and “for controlling the operation of the flow modification device”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“mechanical pre-tensioning device”: corresponding structure cannot be determined, see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“a flow modification device”: corresponding structure cannot be determined, see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
“a control device”: corresponding structure cannot be determined, see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “mechanical pre-tensioning devices” (claim 34, lines 4-5) invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the mechanical pre-tensioning devices. The specification discloses on page 16 of the specification “free from mechanical pre-tensioning devices acting on the first and the second valve body”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the mechanical pre-tensioning devices is/are.
The limitation “a flow modification device for modifying the respiratory gas quantity” (claim 36 and 37, lines 3-4) invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the flow modification device. The specification discloses on page 19 of the specification “a flow modification device”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the flow modification device is/are.
The limitation “a control device for controlling the operation of the flow modification device” (claims 36 and 37, line 6) invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the control device. The specification discloses on page 19 of the specification “a control device”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the control device is/are.
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 19-37 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the first one” (line 4) is unclear if the first one is referring to “a first source-linking aperture” or another structure.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “A valve arrangement accommodated in the housing which is displaceable” (line 11) is unclear as to what structure is being referred to by the term “which”, is the term “which referring to the valve arrangement or the housing.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “first operational state in which it releases…in which it blocks” (lines 12 and 14) is unclear as to what structure is being reference by the term “in which it”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “namely in such a manner” (line 25) is unclear and confusing as to what is meant by “namely in such a manner”, it is unclear if the limitation following the limitation “namely in such a manner” is being positively claimed or just being named.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “second stack exterior surface sections are conceived as stack exterior surface sections” (lines 26-27) is unclear as how to define the metes and bounds of the limitations. Specifically, what is meant by “conceived as stack exterior surface sections”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the outlet-” (line 28) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the outlet is a part of the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies or another structure or the housing of the switching-valve assembly being claimed in claim 19, line 1. The limitation “the follow-up linking apertures” (lines 28-29) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 19, lines 23-24 claims a singular follow-up linking aperture. Furthermore, since the limitations “the outlet-” and “the follow-up linking apertures” lack proper antecedent basis, the limitation “gas supply line sections each extending from the outlet- and the follow-up linking apertures into the housing are connected into a continuous gas supply line region” (lines 28-30) is unclear, specifically, it is unclear as to what is the structural relationship between the “gas supply line sections each” and the switching-valve assembly being claimed in claim 19, line 1 and the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies being claimed in claim 19, line 27, therefore, it is unclear if the gas supply line sections are referring to each gas supply line sections of each of the switching-valve assembly and/or the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies. Furthermore, it is unclear if the sections are continuous (“continuous gas supply line region”) through the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies and the housing or just the housing.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “with one another” (line 28) is unclear as to what structures are being referred to by the term “one another”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “which is configured” (line 3) is unclear as to which structure is being referred to by the term “which”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a similar separate modular switching-valve assembly” (lines 4-5) is unclear if “a similar separate modular switching-valve assembly” is part of the “similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies” being claimed in claim 19, line 27 or is in addition to “similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies” being claimed in claim 19, line 27.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the follow-up linking arrangement” (lines 6-7) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the follow-up linking arrangement is referring to the follow-up linking apertures or a subset of the follow-up linking apertures being claimed in claim 19, lines 24 and 28-29 or an arrangement in additional to the apertures.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “exhibits a formation out of a projection and a recess” (lines 2-3) is unclear if the formation is referring to either a projection or a recess, or if the formation is referring to a subcomponent of the projection and the recess.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “exhibits the respective other formation out of a projection and a recess complementarily to the formation of the first stack exterior surface section” (lines 3-5) is unclear if “a projection and a recess” is referring to “a projection and a recess” being claimed in claim 24, lines 2-3 or not. Therefore, it is unclear as to what is being referenced to by “the respective other formation”. Furthermore, it is unclear if the other formation is referring to one of the projection or recess, or if the other formation is a subcomponent of the projection and the recess.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “parallelepiped-like outer shape” (line 2) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “like”, the term “like” is too relative, therefore, it is unclear as to what feature makes a shape parallelepiped-like and what feature makes a shape not parallelepiped-like.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the first one” (line 3) is unclear as to what structure is being referred to by the term “the first one”, if the limitation is referring to the first valve body, suggest to amend to --the first valve body--.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “are each arranged between the first and the second source-linking apertures on the one hand and the output-linking aperture on the other” (lines 3-5) is unclear as to what the limitation is trying to claim because it is not clear what is meant by “on the one hand…on the other”, the limitation “the one hand” and “the other” lack proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim a structure or a human body part. If the intent of the limitation is figurative, it is unclear as to what is meant by “are each arranged between the first and the second source-linking apertures on the one hand and the output-linking aperture on the other”.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the first one” (line 13) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the first one is referring to the first cavity region or another structure/reference point. If the limitation is referring to the first cavity region, suggest to amend “the first one” to --the first cavity region--.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the first valve body cavity which in the first valve body cavity defines” (lines 12-13) is unclear and confusing as to what the claimed limitation is trying to claim, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referenced to by the term “which in”.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the second valve body cavity which in the second valve body cavity defines” (lines 15-16) is unclear and confusing as to what the claimed limitation is trying to claim, furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referenced to by the term “which in”.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the third one” (line 17) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what is being referenced to by the term “the third one”.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “a first switching valve assembly according to Claim 19 and a second switching-valve assembly according to Claim 19” (lines 1-2) is unclear as to which switching valve assembly the limitation is referring to, the switching-valve assembly in claim 19, line 1 or switching valve assembly of the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies being claimed in claim 19, line 27.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “a gas supply line region” (lines 6-7) is unclear if the gas supply region is the same as or different from “a gas supply line region” being claimed in claim 19, lines 29-30.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “the outlet linking arrangement” (line 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “the one switching-valve assembly and …the other switching-valve assembly” (lines 7-9) is unclear as to which switching-valve assembly is being referred to by the limitations “the one switching-valve assembly” and “the other switching-valve assembly”.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “the follow-up linking arrangement” (line 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “the output-linking aperture of at least one switching-valve assembly according to claim 19” (lines 7-8) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear as to which switching valve the limitation is referring to, the switching-valve assembly in claim 19, line 1 or switching valve assembly of the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies being claimed in claim 19, line 27 or a new switching-valve assembly.
Regarding claim 37, the limitation “the output-linking aperture of at least one switching-valve assembly according to claim 35” (lines 7-8) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear as to which switching valve the limitation is referring to, the switching-valve assembly in claim 19, line 1, or switching valve assembly of the similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies being claimed in claim 19, line 27, or the first switching-valve assembly of claim 35 or the second switching-valve assembly of claim 35 or a new switching-valve assembly.
Claim limitations “mechanical pre-tensioning devices” (claim 34, lines 4-5), “a flow modification device for modifying the respiratory gas quantity” (claims 36 and 37, lines 3-4), “a control device for controlling the operation of the flow modification device” (claims 36 and 37, line 6) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: regarding the limitation “mechanical pre-tensioning devices” (claim 34, lines 4-5), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the mechanical pre-tensioning devices, the specification discloses on page 16 of the specification “free from mechanical pre-tensioning devices acting on the first and the second valve body”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the mechanical pre-tensioning devices is/are; regarding the limitation “a flow modification device for modifying the respiratory gas quantity” (claim 36 and 37, lines 3-4), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the flow modification device, the specification discloses on page 19 of the specification “a flow modification device”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the flow modification device is/are; and regarding the limitation “a control device for controlling the operation of the flow modification device” (claims 36 and 37, line 6), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the control device, the specification discloses on page 19 of the specification “a control device”, however, provided no details as to what the corresponding structure(s) for the control device is/are.
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-37 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record Dey (6,173,729) does not specifically disclose the claimed apparatus as presented in the claims 19-37.
Dey discloses a switching valve assembly (entire assembly shown in fig. 1) for switching between two respiratory gas sources (gas sources connected to 3.1 and 2.1, fig. 1, col 5, lines 21-38) of a respiratory device (see col 2, line 64 to col 3, line 7), where the switching-valve assembly comprises: a housing (20, fig. 3) with a first source-linking aperture (aperture connected to 2.1, see fig. 1) connects the first-source linking aperture with the output-linking aperture (see 4 and 4.1, fig. 2 and col 5, lines 21-38), with a second source-linking aperture (aperture connected to 3.1, fig. 1) arranged spatially at a distance from the first one, a first gas supply line (gas supply line between the first source-linking aperture and the output, figs. 1-2 and col 5, lines 21-38) which connects the first source-linking aperture with the output-linking aperture, a second gas supply line (gas supply line between the second source-linking aperture and the output, figs. 1-2 and col 5, lines 21-38) which connects the second source-linking aperture with the output-linking aperture, a valve arrangement (7 and 8.1, fig. 2, col 5, lines 21-67) accommodated in the housing which is displaceable between a first operational state in which it releases the first gas supply line for flow-through of respiratory gas and blocks the second gas supply line for flow-through of respiratory gas and blocks the second gas supply line and a second operational state in which it blocks the first gas supply line and release the second gas supply line for flow-through of respiratory gas (see col 5, line 21 to col 6, line 59, Dey stated that fig. 2 shows that the outflow channel 4 is fluidly connected to the inflow channel 3, Dey further stated that when the switchover piston 7 is pushed to the left, in the plane of the drawing, with the inflow channel 3 open, the entire outer surface of the valve closure member 7.2 (on the right of the drawing), the end face of the pin 7.3 and the circular area of the part of the O-ring 8.1 projecting from the wall of the frustum is acted upon by the pressure of the fluid medium, and if the internal pressure of the container connected to the outflow channel 4 gradually decreases as the fluid medium is used up, the switchover piston 7 moves to the right, after the direction of effect of the resultant of the force is reversed), but fails to disclose where the switching-valve assembly is configured stackably as a modular switching-valve assembly, wherein the housing exhibits a first outside section with a first stack exterior surface section and a second outside section arranged at a distance and/or at an angular distance relative to the first outside section with a second stack exterior surface section configured complementarily to the first stack exterior surface section, where the output-linking aperture is configured at an outside section out of the first and the second outside section and where a source-linking aperture out of the first and the second source-linking aperture is configured as a follow-up linking aperture at the respective other outside section out of the first and the second outside section, namely in such a manner that when the first and the second stack exterior surface sections are conceived as stack exterior surface sections of similar separate modular switching-valve assemblies in stack engagement with one another, gas supply line sections each extending form the outlet- and the follow-up linking apertures into the housing are connected into a continuous gas supply line region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burns (4,018,244) is cited to show a switching valve.
Rado (2017/0198827) is cited to show a switching valve.
Wayne (3,633,606) is cited to show a switching valve.
Fish (2023/0028610) is cited to show a valve comprising stackable modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights