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 .
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.
Claims 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.
On lines 9-10 of claim 1, the phrase “a controller that is configured to execute a diagnostic procedure, wherein the diagnostic procedure causes the controller to” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes the “diagnostic procedure” in this phrase. Claim 1 only recites that the diagnostic procedure “causes the controller” to perform certain actions, but does not recite what the “diagnostic procedure” actually is. Does the diagnostic procedure comprise steps to determine an oxygen concentration of gas produced in the oxygen concentrator? On line 18 of claim 1, the phrase “a testing standard described by the diagnostic procedure” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes a “testing standard” and what constitutes the “diagnostic procedure” in this phrase. Is the “testing standard” a specific threshold concentration of oxygen, and is the diagnostic procedure a procedure to determine a concentration of an oxygen gas produced in the oxygen concentrator? It is not understood how the recited “diagnostic result” recited on line 16 of claim 1 is obtained since it is not clear what type of “testing standard” to compare the one or more gas property measurements to.
On line 3 of claim 2, the phrase “pneumatically isolate” is indefinite since it is not clear how such a step takes place in the oxygen concentrator. What actions are taken to “pneumatically” isolate a subject component in the oxygen concentrator from the other components?
On lines 2-3 of claim 7, the phrase “include a command to cause the oxygen concentrator to operate in manner intended to achieve at least one of…” is indefinite since it is not clear what the oxygen concentrator operates in this phrase. Does the oxygen concentrator cause the media bed to operate in a manner intended to achieve at least one of a desired flow rate, a desired oxygen concentration or a desired pressure of the output gas?
On line 3 of claim 9, the phrase “an intended position” is indefinite since it is not clear what this means. Is an “intended position” of the valve either an open or closed position of the valve?
In claim 15, the recitation of the “service procedure” is indefinite since it is not clear whether this refers to a service procedure of the oxygen concentrator.
On line 7 of claim 16, the phrase “the controller” lacks antecedent basis since a controller has not yet been positively recited in the claim. In addition, the phrase “the controller is further configured to” on line 7 of claim 16 is indefinite since a controller has not been initially recited in claim 16 that is configured to perform a first action. On lines 9-10 of claim 16, the phrase “a controller that is configured to execute a diagnostic procedure, wherein the diagnostic procedure causes the controller to” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes the “diagnostic procedure” in this phrase. Claim 16 only recites that the diagnostic procedure “causes the controller” to perform certain actions, but does not recite what the “diagnostic procedure” actually is. Does the diagnostic procedure comprise steps to determine an oxygen concentration of gas produced in the oxygen concentrator? On line 15 of claim 16, the phrase “the one or more gas property measurements” lacks antecedent basis since no gas property measurements have been previously positively recited in claim 16. On line 18 of claim 16, the phrase “a testing standard described by the diagnostic procedure” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes a “testing standard” and what constitutes the “diagnostic procedure” in this phrase. Is the “testing standard” a specific threshold concentration of oxygen, and is the diagnostic procedure a procedure to determine a concentration of an oxygen gas produced in the oxygen concentrator? It is not understood how the recited “diagnostic result” recited on line 17 of claim 16 is obtained since it is not clear what type of “testing standard” to compare the one or more gas property measurements to.
On line 3 of claim 17, the phrase “and oxygen concentration” should be changed to –an oxygen concentration—in order to make proper sense.
On lines 4-5 of claim 20, the phrase “the one or more gas property measurements of the output gas” lacks antecedent basis because independent claim 16, from which claim 20 depends, recites “one or more gas property measurements during supply of the input gas to the oxygen concentrator”, not one or more gas property measurements of an output gas.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miaralipour et al (US 2022/0096780, submitted in the IDS filed on November 23, 2023).
With regards to claim 1, Miaralipour et al teach of a diagnostic system for estimating a remaining capacity of a sieve bed in a portable oxygen concentrator. The system comprises communications interfaces for communicating with an oxygen concentrator 100 (see the various communication dotted lines in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al which depict communications between different components of an oxygen concentrator 100 and a controller 400), an output gas interface that is configured for pneumatic communication with the oxygen concentrator 100 in order to receive an output gas from the oxygen concentrator 100 (see the tube or pipeline extending from a gas accumulator 106 in Figure 4A of Miaralipour et al which accumulates oxygen-enriched gas from canisters 302 and 304 in the oxygen concentrator, and wherein the oxygen-enriched gas in the accumulator 106 is directed as output gas into the tube or pipeline extending from the gas accumulator 106), one or more sensors that are configured to obtain one or more gas property measurements of the output gas that is received from the oxygen concentrator 100 using the output gas interface (see Figure 4A in Miaralipour et al that depicts an oxygen sensor 162, a flow sensor 185 and a pressure sensor 194 in the tube or pipeline extending from the gas accumulator 106 that measure the gas properties of an oxygen content, a flow rate and a pressure of the output gas from the oxygen concentrator 100), and a controller 400 configured to execute a diagnostic procedure, wherein the diagnostic procedure causes the controller 400 to transmit one or more commands to the oxygen concentrator 100 using the communications interfaces, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause operation of the oxygen concentrator 100 (see the communication interfaces in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al represented by the dotted lines between the controller 400 and various components of the oxygen concentrator 100 such as a gas compression system 200 which compresses an input gas introduced into the concentrator, inlet valves 122 and 124 connected to sieve bed canisters 302 and 304 for allowing compressed gas to enter into the canisters, outlet valves 132 and 134 also connected to the canisters 302 and 304 for allowing nitrogen gas to exhaust through an outlet 133, and outlet valves 152 and 154 connected to the canisters 302 and 304 for allowing an oxygen-enriched gas to enter into the gas accumulator 106, also see paragraphs 0092 and 0094-0095 in Miaralipour et al, especially paragraph 0095 where it states “Controller 400 is programmed to operate oxygen concentrator 100 and is further programmed to monitor the oxygen concentrator for malfunction states”), obtain one or more gas property measurements from the one or more sensors 162, 185 and 194 during operation of the oxygen concentrator 100 (see Figure 4A and paragraphs 0077-0085 in Miaralipour et al), determine a diagnostic result by comparing the one or more gas property measurements obtained from the one or more sensors 162, 185 and 194 during operation of the oxygen concentrator 100 to a testing standard described by a diagnostic procedure (see paragraph 0096 in Miaralipour et al where it is described how controller 400 determines a diagnostic result by comparing an oxygen concentration measured by the oxygen sensor 162 to a minimum oxygen concentration threshold, wherein the threshold comprises a testing standard described by a diagnostic procedure to produce oxygen-enriched gas in the oxygen concentrator 100, and see paragraph 0156 in Miaralipour et al which also describes comparing a measured oxygen concentration of the output gas from the concentrator 100 to a standard threshold oxygen concentration in order to assess an estimate of a remaining capacity of the sieve beds 302, 304 and a need for replacement of the sieve beds with new beds), and outputting information regarding the diagnostic result to a user on a display (see paragraph 0152 in Miaralipour et al where it states “In one implementation, the remaining capacity and/or usage time estimate may be displayed on the control panel 600 of the POC 100”).
With regards to claim 12, Miaralipour et al also teach that the diagnostic system comprises an input gas interface that is configured for pneumatic communication with the oxygen concentrator 100, wherein the input gas interface comprises the tube or pipeline extending from the air compression system 200 to the inlet valves 122 and 124 depicted in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al that introduces compressed input air into the oxygen concentrator 100, and a gas supply comprising the air compression system 200 that is configured to supply an input gas to the oxygen concentrator 100 using the input gas interface, wherein the controller 400 is configured to operate the gas supply 200 to provide the input gas from the gas supply to the oxygen concentrator (see Figure 1 in Miaralipour et al which depicts the controller 400 in communication with the air compression system 200 to control the introduction of input gas into the input gas interface (i.e. the tube extending from the compression system 200 to the inlet valves 122, 124) of the oxygen concentrator 100).
With regards to claim 13, Miaralipour et al teach that the gas supply 200 is operated to provide the input gas to the oxygen concentrator 100 according to at least one of a predetermined pressure or a predetermined flow rate. See paragraph 0048 in Miaralipour et al which states “Pressurized air, produced by compression system 200, may be forced into one or both of the canisters 302 and 304. In some embodiments, the feed gas may be pressurized in the canisters to a pressure approximately in a range of up to 30 pounds per square inch (psi)”.
With regards to claim 14, Miaralipour et al teach that the sensors in the diagnostic system comprise a flow sensor 185, an oxygen sensor 162, and a pressure sensor or transducer 194. See Figure 4A and paragraphs 0078-0085 in Miaralipour et al.
With regards to claim 15, Miaralipour et al further teach that the controller 400 is also configured to identify information describing a service procedure based on the diagnostic result and the information regarding the diagnostic result includes the information describing the service procedure. See paragraph 0156 in Miaralipour et al which describes the controller 400 of the oxygen concentrator 100 determining an estimate of the remaining capacity C of the sieve beds 302 and 304 based on a diagnostic result produced by comparing a measured oxygen concentration of the output gas from the concentrator 100 to a standard threshold oxygen concentration, and a need for a service procedure comprising replacement of the sieve beds with new beds.
With regards to claim 16, Miaralipour et al teach of a diagnostic system for estimating a remaining capacity of a sieve bed in a portable oxygen concentrator. The system comprises communications interfaces for communicating with an oxygen concentrator 100 (see the various communication dotted lines in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al which depict communications between different components of an oxygen concentrator 100 and a controller 400), an input gas interface that is configured for pneumatic communication with an oxygen concentrator, wherein the input gas interface comprises the tube or pipeline extending from the air compression system 200 to the inlet valves 122 and 124 depicted in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al that introduces compressed input air into the oxygen concentrator 100, a gas supply comprising the air compression system 200 that is configured to supply an input gas to the oxygen concentrator 100 using the input gas interface, wherein the controller 400 is configured to operate the gas supply 200 to provide the input gas from the gas supply to the oxygen concentrator (see Figure 1 in Miaralipour et al which depicts the controller 400 in communication with the air compression system 200 to control the introduction of input gas into the input gas interface (i.e. the tube extending from the compression system 200 to the inlet valves 122, 124) of the oxygen concentrator 100), and a controller 400 configured to execute a diagnostic procedure, wherein the diagnostic procedure causes the controller 400 to transmit one or more commands to the oxygen concentrator 100 using the communications interfaces, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause operation of the oxygen concentrator 100 (see the communication interfaces in Figure 1 of Miaralipour et al represented by the dotted lines between the controller 400 and various components of the oxygen concentrator 100 such as a gas compression system 200 which compresses an input gas introduced into the concentrator, inlet valves 122 and 124 connected to sieve bed canisters 302 and 304 for allowing compressed gas to enter into the canisters, outlet valves 132 and 134 also connected to the canisters 302 and 304 for allowing nitrogen gas to exhaust through an outlet 133, and outlet valves 152 and 154 connected to the canisters 302 and 304 for allowing an oxygen-enriched gas to enter into the gas accumulator 106, also see paragraphs 0092 and 0094-0095 in Miaralipour et al, especially paragraph 0095 where it states “Controller 400 is programmed to operate oxygen concentrator 100 and is further programmed to monitor the oxygen concentrator for malfunction states”), supply input gas to the oxygen concentrator 100 from the gas compression system 200, obtain one or more gas property measurements from the one or more sensors 162, 185 and 194 during supply of the input gas to the oxygen concentrator 100 since the input gas continuously flows through the inlet valves, sieve beds and outlet valves of the concentrator 100 to the oxygen accumulator 106 and then to the sensors 162, 185 and 194 (see Figure 4A and paragraphs 0077-0085 in Miaralipour et al), determine a diagnostic result by comparing the one or more gas property measurements obtained from the one or more sensors 162, 185 and 194 during operation of the oxygen concentrator 100 to a testing standard described by a diagnostic procedure (see paragraph 0096 in Miaralipour et al where it is described how controller 400 determines a diagnostic result by comparing an oxygen concentration measured by the oxygen sensor 162 to a minimum oxygen concentration threshold, wherein the threshold comprises a testing standard described by a diagnostic procedure to produce oxygen-enriched gas in the oxygen concentrator 100, and see paragraph 0156 in Miaralipour et al which also describes comparing a measured oxygen concentration of the output gas from the concentrator 100 to a standard threshold oxygen concentration in order to assess an estimate of a remaining capacity of the sieve beds 302, 304 and a need for replacement of the sieve beds with new beds), and outputting information regarding the diagnostic result to a user on a display (see paragraph 0152 in Miaralipour et al where it states “In one implementation, the remaining capacity and/or usage time estimate may be displayed on the control panel 600 of the POC 100”).
With regards to claim 17, Miaralipour et al teach that the input gas flows through inlet valves 122 and 124 of the oxygen concentrator, and the one or more gas property measurements include a flow rate, an oxygen concentration and a pressure measured at a location that is downstream of the valves 122 and 124 of the oxygen concentrator 100. See Figures 1 and 4A in Miaralipour et al.
With regards to claim 18, Miaralipour et al teach that the input gas flows through media beds 302 and 304 of the oxygen concentrator, and the one or more gas property measurements include a flow rate, an oxygen concentration and a pressure measured at a location that is downstream of the media beds 302 and 304 of the oxygen concentrator 100. See Figures 1 and 4A in Miaralipour et al.
With regards to claim 19, Miaralipour et al teach that the input gas flows through sensors 162, 185 and 194 the oxygen concentrator 100, and the one or more gas property measurements include a flow rate, an oxygen concentration and a pressure measured with the sensors. See Figures 1 and 4A, and paragraphs 0078-0085 in Miaralipour et al.
With regards to claim 20, Miaralipour et al teach that the diagnostic system also comprises an output gas interface that is configured for pneumatic communication with the oxygen concentrator 100 in order to receive an output gas from the oxygen concentrator 100 (see the tube or pipeline extending from a gas accumulator 106 in Figure 4A of Miaralipour et al which accumulates oxygen-enriched gas from canisters 302 and 304 in the oxygen concentrator, and wherein the oxygen-enriched gas in the accumulator 106 is directed as output gas into the tube or pipeline extending from the gas accumulator 106), and one or more sensors that are configured to obtain one or more gas property measurements of the output gas that is received from the oxygen concentrator 100 using the output gas interface (see Figure 4A in Miaralipour et al that depicts an oxygen sensor 162, a flow sensor 185 and a pressure sensor 194 in the tube or pipeline extending from the gas accumulator 106 that measure the gas properties of an oxygen content, a flow rate and a pressure of the output gas from the oxygen concentrator 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the closest prior art to Miaralipour et al (US 2022/0096780, submitted in the IDS filed on November 20, 2023 and described above) fails to teach or fairly suggest that the controller 400 of the diagnostic system causes the oxygen concentrator 100 to pneumatically isolate a subject component of the concentrator, such as the compression system 200, the media beds 302, 304, one or more of the valves 122, 124, 132, 134, 152 and 154, or one or more of the sensors 162, 185 and 194, relative to one or more of the other components of the concentrator in order to test and diagnose whether the pneumatically isolated component is working or functioning properly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Deane et al (US 7,708,802) who teach of a portable gas fractionalization system with built-in administrative and self-diagnostic functions; Thompson et al (US 8,900,353) who teach of a portable oxygen concentrator system; Chekal et al (US 2009/0214393) who teach of a method for generating an oxygen-enriched gas for a user; Rowland (US 4,627,860) who teaches of an oxygen concentrator and test apparatus; and Wilkinson et al (US 2017/0087326) who teach of an oxygen concentrator system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 March 5, 2026