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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 Jun 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 21-29 are pending in the application with claims 16-20 canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 15, 21 and 23-29 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims along with applicant’s arguments have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 24 Mar 2026.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn as requested based upon the amendment to the claims (Pg. 14).
The present Office action is sent as a second Non-Final Office action as the current examiner has identified several issues not noted by the prior examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 13, filed 24 Jun 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of certain claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of certain claims has been withdrawn. Examiner concurs with applicant’s assertion that the use of the identifiers “first” and “second” in the claims are merely descriptive and are specifically used in the claims in a manner which is directly consistent with each element’s discussion in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 29 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29, Ln. 13-14 recites “the first driving gas interface and/or the second driving gas interface is capable” which should read “the first driving gas interface and/or the second driving gas interface are/is capable”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3, 6-15 and 21-29 is/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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a driving gas” in Ln. 2-3 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the same driving gas as claim 1 or to an alternate driving gas. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the driving gas”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a driving gas” in Ln. 23-24 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the same driving gas as recited earlier in the claim or to an alternate driving gas. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the driving gas”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an external gas source” in Ln. 2-3 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the same external gas source as claim 6 or to an alternate external gas source. The latter interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a second external gas source”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a driving gas” in Ln. 25-26 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the same driving gas as recited earlier in the claim or to an alternate driving gas. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the driving gas”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a top end” in Ln. 5 and “a bottom end” in Ln. 6-7 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the same top end and bottom end as recited earlier in the claim or to alternate top and bottom ends. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitations will be interpreted as reading “the top end” and “the bottom end,” respectively.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a first breathing circuit mechanism” in Ln. 17-18 which deems the claim indefinite. The limitation has been recited as distinct from the earlier “breathing circuit mechanism,” but appears drawn to the same structure. It is thus unclear whether the limitation refers to the same breathing circuit mechanism as recited earlier in the claim or to an alternate breathing circuit mechanism. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the breathing circuit mechanism”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the first exhaust emission interface is configured to be blocked” in Ln. 15 which deems the claim indefinite. The limitation recites a function, i.e. blocking of the first exhaust emission interface, without reciting any structure sufficient to perform the claimed function. The limitation is thus improper as it attempts to define a structure but what it does rather than what it is (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). It is suggested to amend the limitation to specify the first exhaust emission interface as configured to be blocked by a top plate which is placed over the first exhaust emission interface when the ventilator is not connected, as discussed in ¶0090 of the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are allowed. Claim 3 is solely rejected based upon the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Claims 6-15 and 21-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Each of independent claims 1, 6, 21, 28 and 29 remain allowed over the prior art. No prior art is found which would require withdrawal of the prior determination of allowability over the prior art of the pending claims.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 21 particularly note is made of the flow paths defined by the claims which generally require flow from the ventilator to pass through the main machine housing (of the anesthesia main machine) before flowing into the first breathing circuit mechanism. It is noted that the term “ventilator” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as including means to provide a driving gas. Further, the bellows of the claim is separately recited from the ventilator and thus cannot be drawn to the same structure as the ventilator. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the particular configuration of housing structures and flow paths recited by each of independent claims 1, 6 and 21.
Regarding claim 28 it is noted that the same general structure is recited as claims 1, 6 and 21 except that the claim is solely drawn to the anesthesia main machine with the ventilator and the breathing circuit mechanism only functionally recited as interacting with the anesthesia main machine. The language “main machine” is understood to require a complete unit for operation in providing anesthesia. There is still not found to be any prior art to read on the required structures and flow paths recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 29 it is noted that the same general structure is recited as claims 1, 6 and 21 except that the claim is solely drawn to the anesthesia main machine with the ventilator and the breathing circuit mechanism only functionally recited as interacting with the anesthesia main machine. It is noted that the anesthesia main machine must include five distinct interfaces with the terms such as “driving gas,” “exhaust emission,” and “fresh gas” all providing meaningful context as to types and directions of flow through each interface. Thus, by example, the anesthesia main machine must be configured to receive exhaled gas back from the patient to constitute an exhaust flow, as understood in light of the instant specification. Further, the claimed anesthesia main machine must be individually designed such that at least two of its particular interfaces are available for being blocked when a ventilator is not connected to anesthesia main machine. The language “main machine” is understood to require a complete unit for operation in providing anesthesia. There is still not found to be any prior art to read on the required structures and flow paths recited by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights