Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 6/12/2023. Since the initial
filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the
application.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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) 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected due to use of indefinite wording. The word “object” is found throughout these claims. For example, “pressure measurement data objects” in claim 1 line 8 and “performance parameter data object” in claim 1 line 10. It is unclear what type of data/signal is being claimed through the use of “object,” especially compared to the meaning of the term “parameter.” For purposes of this examination, “object” is being interpreted to mean any kind of data collected or generated.
Similarly, claim(s) 1-20, are rejected due to use of indefinite wording. The word “parameter” is found throughout these claims. For example, “trigger pressure parameter” in claim 1 line 12 and “air supply parameter” in claim 1 line 13. It is unclear what type of data/signal is being claimed through the use of “parameter,” especially compared to the meaning of the term “object.” For purposes of this examination, “parameter” is being interpreted to mean any kind of data collected from or generated by a sensor/physical component.
Claim 5 is further rejected for use of indefinite limitations.
The limitation “ generate, based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects, a breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations between a plurality of pressure measurement parameters and a plurality of time code parameters” in claim 5 lines 4-6 and the limitation “generate, based on the plurality of fan operation data objects, an air supply graph object indicating a plurality of fan-time data correlations between a plurality of fan control parameters and the plurality of time code parameters” Claim 5 lines 7-9 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations” means. Additionally, what a “breathing pattern graph object” is unclear. For purposes of this examination, these limitations are being interpreted to mean generation of graphs from fan component data and pressure sensor data.
Claim 6 is further rejected for use of indefinite limitations.
The limitation “select at least one time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of fan-time data correlations, wherein the at least one-time code parameter indicating at least one fan triggering time point associated with the fan component” in claim 6 lines 14-16 is indefinite. It is unclear what “one time code parameter indicating at least one fan triggering time point associated with the fan component” means. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean time data is selected from a grouping of time data with this data representing a fan triggering point in the fan component.
Similarly, the limitation “determine at least one pressure measurement parameter from the plurality of pressure measurement parameters corresponding to the at least one time code parameter” in claim 6 lines 17-18 is indefinite. It is unclear what kind of computation/analysis is being performed on the data. It is unclear what a “plurality of pressure measurement parameters corresponding to the at least one time code parameter” means. At “least one time code parameter” is unclear. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean a selection of a pressure measurement from a selection of pressure measurements at corresponding times.
Claim 7 is further rejected for use of indefinite limitations. The limitation “calculate a breath count associated with a sample time period based at least in part on the breathing pattern graph object” in claim 7 lines 25-26 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “sample time period based at least in part on the breathing pattern graph object” means. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean calculating a breath count data over a certain period with at least some data coming from the breathing pattern graph.
Similarly, the limitation “calculate a fan operation count associated with the sample time period based at least in part on the air supply graph object” in claim 7 lines 27-28 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “fan operation count” means. Additionally, a “air supply graph object” is unclear. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean calculating fan data count over a certain period with at least some data coming from the air supply graph.
Claim 8 is further rejected for use of indefinite limitations. The limitation “determine at least one fan triggering time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of fan-time data correlations” in claim 8 lines 4-5 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of fan-time data correlations” means. Additionally, a “time code parameter” is unclear. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean determining fan triggering data from a selection of different times based on correlations from fan and time data.
Similarly, the limitation “determine at least one inhalation starting time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of pressure-time data correlations” in claim 8 lines 6-7 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “time code parameter” means. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean determining inhalation start data from a selection of different times based on correlations from pressure and time data.
Claim 9 is further due to including a indefinite limitation. The limitation “determine one or more fan control parameters from the plurality of fan control parameters that are associated with the sample time period” in claim 9 lines 15-16 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “plurality of fan control parameters that are associated with the sample time period” means. For purposes of this examination, this limitation is being interpreted to mean determining fan control data from fan control data that is associated with the sample time period.
Additionally, Claim(s) 14-18 are rejected for use of the same limitations listed in the rejections of claims 5-9. These limitations are given the same interpretations listed above.
Any remaining claims are rejected under 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to step 1, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 10 is directed to a method, and claim 19 is directed to a computer program product for a technical solution which are eligible at step 1.
With respect to step 2A Prong 1, the following elements are considered to be abstract:
“retrieve a plurality of pressure measurement data objects and a plurality of fan operation data objects associated with the respiratory protective device” in claim 1 line(s) 8-9.
“generate a performance parameter data object based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects and the plurality of fan operation data objects, wherein the performance parameter data object comprises at least one of a trigger pressure parameter, a trigger percentage parameter, a latency time parameter, or an air supply parameter” in claim 1 line(s) 10-13.
“determine a performance criterion data object corresponding to the performance parameter data object” in claim 1 line(s) 14-15.
“generate a performance indication data object based on comparing the performance parameter data object with the performance criterion data object” in claim 1 line(s) 16-17.
These elements are mental processes (i.e., evaluation or judgement) and/or mathematical operations
that can be performed in the human mind, or by hand using pen and paper.
These same limitations which are recited in independent claims 10 and 19 fall under this analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 10 and 19), 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) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: “a non-transitory memory comprising program code” claim 1 line 6, “processor” claim 1 line 7, “Computer” in “computer-implemented method” in claim 10 line 20, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” claim 19 line 6 are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20) 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 Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19(and their respective dependent claims Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20) 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 processor 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 Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Additionally, for the reasons listed above dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20 fail to further distinguish from an abstract idea and are only further limiting mental processes capable of being performed on a computer or adding additional computational steps.
The limitations listed below fail 2A prong 2 because they do not provide any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“each of the plurality of pressure measurement data objects comprises a pressure measurement parameter associated with the pressure sensor component and a time code parameter correlating to the pressure measurement parameter.” in claim 2 line(s) 19-21
“each of the plurality of fan operation data objects comprises a fan control parameter associated with the fan component and a time code parameter correlating to the fan control parameter.” In claim 3 line(s) 23-25
“the fan control parameter indicates at least one of a voltage value associated with the fan component or at least a current value associated with the fan component.” In claim 4 line(s) 27-29
“when generating the performance parameter data object, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to generate based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects, a breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations between a plurality of pressure measurement parameters and a plurality of time code parameters” in claim 5 line(s) 1-6
“generate based on the plurality of fan operation data objects, an air supply graph object indicating a plurality of fan-time data correlations between a plurality of fan control parameters and the plurality of time code parameters.” In claim 5 line(s) 7-9
“the performance parameter data object comprises the trigger pressure parameter, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: select at least one time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of fan-time data correlations, wherein the at least one time code parameter indicating at least one fan triggering time point associated with the fan component” In claim 6 line(s) 11-16
“determine at least one pressure measurement parameter from the plurality of pressure measurement parameters corresponding to the at least one time code parameter” In claim 6 line(s) 17-18
“calculate the trigger pressure parameter based at least in part on the at least one pressure measurement parameter.” In claim 6 line(s) 19-20
“the performance parameter data object comprises the trigger percentage parameter, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to calculate a breath count associated with a sample time period based at least in part on the breathing pattern graph object” in claim 7 line(s) 25-26
“calculate a fan operation count associated with the sample time period based at least in part on the air supply graph object” in claim 7 line(s) 27-28
“calculate the trigger percentage parameter based at least in part on the breath count and the fan operation count.” In claim 7 line(s) 29-30
“the performance parameter data object comprises the latency time parameter, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine at least one fan triggering time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of fan-time data correlations” in claim 8 line(s) 1-5
“determine at least one inhalation starting time code parameter from the plurality of time code parameters based on the plurality of pressure-time data correlations” in claim 8 line(s) 6-7
“calculate the latency time parameter based at least in part on the at least one fan triggering time code parameter and the at least one inhalation starting time code parameter” in claim 8 line(s) 8-9
“the performance parameter data object comprises the air supply parameter, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine a sample time period associated with the respiratory protective device” in claim 9 line(s) 9-14
“determine one or more fan control parameters from the plurality of fan control parameters that are associated with the sample time period” in claim 9 line(s) 15-16
“calculate the air supply parameter based at least in part on the one or more fan control parameters” in claim 9 line(s) 17-18
Claim(s) 11-18 and 20 fail set 2A Prong 2 due to using the same limitations as listed above and failing to distinguish over the abstract idea listed in independent claims 10 and 19.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 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 non-transitory memory comprising program code” claim 1 line 6 and “processor” claim 1 line 7, “Computer” in “computer-implemented method” in claim 10 line 20, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” claim 19 line 6 are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20).
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.
Per Applicant’s specification, the processor [para. 117], the non-transitory memory comprising program code [para. 125], computer-implemented method [para. 0014], and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [para. 125] are given general descriptions and list computer components that are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “a non-transitory memory” claim 1 line 6, “processor” claim 1 line 7, “Computer” in “computer-implemented method” in claim 10 line 20, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” claim 19 line 6 are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. 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 technology, 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 “a non-transitory memory” claim 1 line 6, “Computer” in “computer-implemented method” in claim 10 line 20 ,“processor” claim 1 line 7, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” claim 19 line 6. 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 1-20 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 apparatus, method and computer program product of claims 1-20 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 1, 10 and 19(and their dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20) 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). 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 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al.( EP3915645A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kong discloses an apparatus for evaluating a respiratory protective device(para. 73 controller 30), the respiratory protective device comprising a fan component(para. 74, fan blade 20a) and a pressure sensor component(para. 159, sensors such as differential pressure sensor), the apparatus comprising at least one processor(para. 160, a processor) and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor(para. 162, a processor may be associated with one or more storage media such as volatile and non-volatile computer memory such as RAM, PROM, EPROM, and EEPROM), cause the apparatus to at least: retrieve a plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 68, the pressure monitoring enables determination of a pressure) and a plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 104, controller continuously receives and processes the fan signal data) associated with the respiratory protective device; generate a performance parameter data object(Fig. 7, 9, and 10) based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 69, pressure variation as detected based on monitoring the fan rotation speed)(para. 144, The invention may again be applied for detecting the pressure variations caused by breathing for controlling the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve. The fan in this example needs to be turned on during inhalation, to assist the user in drawing air through the series filter, but it may be turned off during exhalation) and the plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 106, the user must select the fan speed setting they find most comfortable)(para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals), wherein the performance parameter data object comprises at least one of a trigger pressure parameter, a trigger percentage parameter, a latency time parameter, or an air supply parameter(Fig. 7, para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals(air supply parameter)); determine a performance criterion data object corresponding to the performance parameter data object(Fig. 9, para. 123, Fig. 9 shows the collection of data into different usage patterns for different fan speed settings); and generate a performance indication data object based on comparing the performance parameter data object with the performance criterion data object(Fig. 10, para. 131, Fig. 10 shows a change caused by optimization from a pre-set algorithm (left image) to a personalized algorithm (right image), para. 134, During calibration cycle fan will be optimized more and more from original settings, para. 135, after calibration cycle user can still use manual settings).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kong discloses an apparatus for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of pressure measurement data objects comprises a pressure measurement parameter associated with the pressure sensor component(para. 159, differential pressure sensor) and a time code parameter correlating to the pressure measurement parameter(para. 36, the controller is for example adapted to perform the monitoring during an initial period of usage of the pollution mask during which the fan rotation speed is manually selected. Thus, the user can manually select the most appropriate fan speed setting during an initial period, from which the mask will learn the user's personal preferences. The auto mode may be disabled during this initial calibration and learning period).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kong discloses an apparatus for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of fan operation data objects comprises a fan control parameter associated with the fan component and a time code parameter correlating to the fan control parameter(para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kong discloses an apparatus for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the fan control parameter indicates at least one of a voltage value associated with the fan component or at least a current value associated with the fan component(para. 84, The rotational speed may be measured from the frequency of the AC component (caused by the switching events in the motor) of the DC voltage to the fan. This AC component originates from the current variation that the fan draws, imposed on the impedance of the power supply.).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kong discloses an apparatus for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when generating the performance parameter data object, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: generate, based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects, a breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations between a plurality of pressure measurement parameters and a plurality of time code parameters(para. 118-119, Figure 8 The bottom image shows how the breathing rate and breathing depth are determined from the fan rotation signal. The acquired breathing pattern includes the breathing rate, the breathing depth and usage time., Figure 8 bottom image); and generate, based on the plurality of fan operation data objects, an air supply graph object indicating a plurality of fan-time data correlations between a plurality of fan control parameters and the plurality of time code parameters(para. 120, Thus, each usage may be a period of time between turning the fan on and turning it off. This may for example
be a period of hours. Within that period, the user may selected any of the fan speed settings (of which there are three in this example). For each fan speed setting, the breathing rate and breathing volume are recorded and the time during which each combination of breathing rate and breathing volumes occurred., Figure 8 top graph).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kong discloses a computer-implemented method for evaluating a respiratory protective device(Abs., This provides a personalized fan speed setting based on a self-learning algorithm), the respiratory protective device comprising a fan component(para. 74, fan blade 20a) and a pressure sensor component(para. 73 controller 30), the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving a plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 68, the pressure monitoring enables determination of a pressure) and a plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 104, controller continuously receives and processes the fan signal data) associated with the respiratory protective device; generating a performance parameter data object(Fig. 7, 9, and 10) based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 69, pressure variation as detected based on monitoring the fan rotation speed)(para. 144, The invention may again be applied for detecting the pressure variations caused by breathing for controlling the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve. The fan in this example needs to be turned on during inhalation, to assist the user in drawing air through the series filter, but it may be turned off during exhalation) and the plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 106, the user must select the fan speed setting they find most comfortable)(para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals), wherein the performance parameter data object comprises at least one of a trigger pressure parameter, a trigger percentage parameter, a latency time parameter, or an air supply parameter(Fig. 7, para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals(air supply parameter)); determining a performance criterion data object corresponding to the performance parameter data object(Fig. 9, para. 123, Fig. 9 shows the collection of data into different usage patterns for different fan speed settings); and generating a performance indication data object based on comparing the performance parameter data object with the performance criterion data object(Fig. 10, para. 131, Fig. 10 shows a change caused by optimization from a pre-set algorithm (left image) to a personalized algorithm (right image), para. 134, During calibration cycle fan will be optimized more and more from original settings, para. 135, after calibration cycle user can still use manual settings).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Kong discloses a computer-implemented method for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of pressure measurement data objects comprises a pressure measurement parameter associated with the pressure sensor component(para. 159, differential pressure sensor) and a time code parameter correlating to the pressure measurement parameter(para. 36, the controller is for example adapted to perform the monitoring during an initial period of usage of the pollution mask during which the fan rotation speed is manually selected. Thus, the user can manually select the most appropriate fan speed setting during an initial period, from which the mask will learn the user's personal preferences. The auto mode may be disabled during this initial calibration and learning period).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kong discloses a computer-implemented method for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of fan operation data objects comprises a fan control parameter associated with the fan component and a time code parameter correlating to the fan control parameter(para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kong discloses a computer-implemented method for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the fan control parameter indicates at least one of a voltage value associated with the fan component or at least a current value associated with the fan component(para. 84, The rotational speed may be measured from the frequency of the AC component (caused by the switching events in the motor) of the DC voltage to the fan. This AC component originates from the current variation that the fan draws, imposed on the impedance of the power supply.).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Kong discloses a computer-implemented method for evaluating a respiratory protective device as claimed in claim 10, wherein generating the performance parameter data object further comprises: generating, based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects, a breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations between a plurality of pressure measurement parameters and a plurality of time code parameters(para. 118-119, Figure 8 The bottom image shows how the breathing rate and breathing depth are determined from the fan rotation signal. The acquired breathing pattern includes the breathing rate, the breathing depth and usage time., Figure 8 bottom image); and generating, based on the plurality of fan operation data objects, an air supply graph object indicating a plurality of fan-time data correlations between a plurality of fan control parameters and the plurality of time code parameters(para. 120, Thus, each usage may be a period of time between turning the fan on and turning it off. This may for example
be a period of hours. Within that period, the user may selected any of the fan speed settings (of which there are three in this example). For each fan speed setting, the breathing rate and breathing volume are recorded and the time during which each combination of breathing rate and breathing volumes occurred., Figure 8 top graph).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Kong discloses a discloses a computer program product(para. 160, embodiments make use of a controller, which can be implemented in numerous ways, with software and/or hardware, to perform the various functions required) for evaluating a respiratory protective device(para. 73 controller 30), the respiratory protective device comprising a fan component(para. 74, fan blade 20a) and a pressure sensor component(para. 159, sensors such as differential pressure sensor), the computer program product comprising comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium(para. 162, controller may be associated with one or more storage media such as volatile and non-volatile computer memory such as RAM, PROM, EPROM, and EEPROM), having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to retrieve a plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 68, the pressure monitoring enables determination of a pressure) and a plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 104, controller continuously receives and processes the fan signal data) associated with the respiratory protective device; generate a performance parameter data object(Fig. 7, 9, and 10) based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects(para. 69, pressure variation as detected based on monitoring the fan rotation speed)(para. 144, The invention may again be applied for detecting the pressure variations caused by breathing for controlling the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve. The fan in this example needs to be turned on during inhalation, to assist the user in drawing air through the series filter, but it may be turned off during exhalation) and the plurality of fan operation data objects(para. 106, the user must select the fan speed setting they find most comfortable)(para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals), wherein the performance parameter data object comprises at least one of a trigger pressure parameter, a trigger percentage parameter, a latency time parameter, or an air supply parameter(Fig. 7, para. 108, The controller collects the fan rotation signals in real time and calculates the breathing rate and breathing depth based on the fan signals(air supply parameter)); determine a performance criterion data object corresponding to the performance parameter data object(Fig. 9, para. 123, Fig. 9 shows the collection of data into different usage patterns for different fan speed settings); and generate a performance indication data object based on comparing the performance parameter data object with the performance criterion data object(Fig. 10, para. 131, Fig. 10 shows a change caused by optimization from a pre-set algorithm (left image) to a personalized algorithm (right image), para. 134, During calibration cycle fan will be optimized more and more from original settings, para. 135, after calibration cycle user can still use manual settings).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Kong discloses a discloses a computer program product as claimed in claim 19, wherein each of the plurality of pressure measurement data objects comprises a pressure measurement parameter associated with the pressure sensor component(para. 159, differential pressure sensor) and a time code parameter correlating to the pressure measurement parameter(para. 36, the controller is for example adapted to perform the monitoring during an initial period of usage of the pollution mask during which the fan rotation speed is manually selected. Thus, the user can manually select the most appropriate fan speed setting during an initial period, from which the mask will learn the user's personal preferences. The auto mode may be disabled during this initial calibration and learning period).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 6-9 and 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Bowden et al. (US 20220339470 A1) and Awiszus (US 20170372216 A1). The prior art are various masks which analyze data fan data and pressure data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEC ROBERT WAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-9880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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.
/A.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785