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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a-d) with reference to Application Number: DE102022116983.9 filed on 07/07/2022.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
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.
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: “identification device” in claims 1 and 3 - 20.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a limiting value G1.” should read “the limiting value G1.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a collision zone” should read “the collision zone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and/or.an” should be fixed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 6 and 10 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaughlin (US 20220001220).
1. McLaughlin discloses a ventilator (10, [0017]; applicant defines a “ventilator” as all devices which assist a patient or other user in natural breathing, or affect the breathing of the user in another way, see p. 6: 19 - 22) wherein the ventilator comprises an identification device which is configured and designed to identify at least one magnetic field M (MF sensor 68, see [0039 – 0040]).
2. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the identification device is at least one sensor or comprises at least one sensor that is configured and designed to detect magnetic flux densities and/or magnetic field strengths to identify the at least one magnetic field M (see [0040]; note also general teaching [0033]).
3. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 2, wherein the sensor is a magnetic field sensor that is configured and designed to measure the magnetic field M in three axes ([0026]).
4. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein at least one limiting value G1 is stored in the identification device (see [0042], “reference threshold magnetic field”), the identification device being configured and designed to identify the at least one magnetic field M when a magnetic flux density or a statistical value of the magnetic flux density exceeds the limiting value G1 (see [0043]; it is noted that magnetic field strength is measured in Tesla per the general teaching in [0033], where Tesla is a measure of flux density, see NPL to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(unit)).
5. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the identification device is configured and designed to detect a magnetic flux density once or continuously or cyclically at time intervals, the time intervals repeating regularly and/or irregularly (see [0039, 0040]).
6. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 5, wherein the time intervals are constant or are ascertained and dynamically adapted in operation of the ventilator (see [0039, 0040]).
10. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator as of claim 1, wherein the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which values of a magnetic flux density are equal to or less than a limiting value G1 as a noncritical zone (see [0044]; the controller identifies and enables calibrated air flow function suitable for the noncritical ambient environment).
11. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 10, wherein the limiting value G1 ranges from 500 RT to 5 mT ([0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin.
7. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 5, wherein the identification device detects the magnetic flux density cyclically (see [0039]). McLaughlin does not disclose that the interval is every 60 seconds. Nonetheless, McLaughlin discloses other sensor readings with an interval of 60 seconds, see [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cyclical intervals in the identification device of McLaughlin with an interval of every 60 seconds for the benefit of extended user options, such as when the user is sitting or resting for an extended period of time and wishes to conserve energy by limiting sensor readings.
Claim(s) 9, 12 – 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin in view of Fan (WO 2022126561).
9. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the ventilator comprises a signal device which is configured and designed to emit at least one signal, the identification device being configured and designed to control the signal device, and wherein the signal device comprises an optical signal generator and/or an acoustic signal generator. Nonetheless, Fan discloses a device inclusive of a ventilator (10), the device furthermore including an identification device (10 or 2, see Fig. 2, p. 4, para. 5 of provided translation), the identification device comprising a signal device which is configured and designed to emit at least one signal (see Fig. 2, 23, p. 6, para. 6), the identification device being configured and designed to control the signal device (see p. 6, para. 4), and wherein the signal device comprises an optical signal generator and/or an acoustic signal generator (see Fig. 6, 65 and 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ventilator with identification device of McLaughlin according to the optical/acoustic alarm of Fan for the benefit of appropriately warning the user that they are headed into a zone which can or will disrupt functioning of the ventilator, see McLaughlin [0019, 0033], and Fan, p. 5, last paragraph.
19. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the identification device activates a signal device on the basis of the identification of various zones of the magnetic field M in such a way that, depending on a specific zone, individual optical signals and/or acoustic signals are output (see Fan, p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, para. 1, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 65 and 66; see claim 9 above).
20. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 19, wherein the optical signals and/or the acoustic signals are output increasingly more intensely with increasing strength of the magnetic field M and/or an optical signal and/or an acoustic signal is automatically adapted when the identification device identifies that one of limiting values G1, G2, G3 is exceeded or has fallen below (see Fan, p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, para. 1) and/or. an optical signal and/or an acoustic signal is automatically adapted when the identification device identifies that a threshold value S is exceeded or has fallen below and/or an optical signal and/or an acoustic signal, which is output when the ventilator is located in a collision zone, can be ended only after critical components of the ventilator have been tested and/or exchanged.
12. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 4. While McLaughlin discloses that some motors can be affected as low as 5 mT, and magnetic fields as high as 50 MT can stop air flow, see [0033], McLaughlin does not disclose wherein one or more additional limiting values are stored in the identification device, on the basis of which the identification device identifies two or more zones of the magnetic field M. Nonetheless, Fan discloses a device inclusive of a ventilator (10) wherein one or more additional limiting values are stored in the identification device, on the basis of which the identification device identifies two or more zones of the magnetic field M (see Fan, p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, para. 1). Therefore, according to the teachings of Fan, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify McLaughlin to include an additional limiting value, in order to warn the severity of the situation, for example moderate impact and constant flow at 5 mT versus loss of air and blower malfunctioning at 50 mT.
13. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 12, wherein a limiting value G3 is stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which the values of the magnetic flux density are higher than the limiting value G3 as a critical zone and/or collision zone (see Fan, p. 6, para. 1).
14. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 13, wherein the limiting value G3 ranges from 3 mT to 100 mT (as described in claim 12 above, it would have been obvious to create a higher limiting value of 50 mT since the higher magnetic strength level has further blower impact such as complete loss of air and blower malfunctioning).
15. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a threshold value S is stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which the values of a magnetic flux density are higher than the limiting value G3 and the threshold value S is exceeded as a collision zone. Nonetheless, Fan discloses that the identification device may include at least two magnetic field monitoring modules 21, so the multiple monitoring modules can compare respective measurement results to optimize control (see p. 5, para. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the zone detection as described in McLaughlin in view of Fan (see p. 6, para. 1) to include comparison of the two different magnetic field monitoring modules as further described in Fan, p. 5, para. 6, for the benefit of ensuring that the collision zone has been entered, e.g. in the event of a faulty or uncalibrated sensor.
Upon providing the modification as described, a threshold value S is stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which the values of a magnetic flux density are higher than the limiting value G3 and the threshold value S is exceeded as a collision zone. It is noted that the threshold value “S” is recited generically, and thus the threshold value S may be interpreted to correspond to the second magnetic field monitoring module of Fan (whereas the limiting value G3 is interpreted to correspond to the first magnetic field monitoring module).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin in view of Fan in view of Molyneaux (US 20070132581).
8. McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 4. Fan furthermore discloses the addition of one or more additional limiting values as discussed in claim 12 above. However, McLaughlin in view of Fan does not disclose wherein the identification device detects a magnetic flux density in a manner dynamically adapted to a magnetic field strength when the limiting value G1 is exceeded. Nonetheless, Molyneaux discloses wherein the identification device detects a magnetic flux density in a manner dynamically adapted to a magnetic field strength when the limiting value G1 is exceeded, see [0022]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the additional alarm of McLaughlin in view of Fan according to the dynamic sensing of Molyneaux for the benefit of conserving power draw from the magnetic sensor(s) until absolutely necessary.
16. McLaughlin as modified by Fan discloses the ventilator of claim 13. McLaughlin discloses use in other environments such as health care, see [0002, 0032], and different impacts on motor function at 5 mT versus 50 mT, see [0033], and Fan illustrates four different magnetic zones (see Fig. 1). However, McLaughlin in view of Fan does not disclose wherein a limiting value G2 is stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which values of the magnetic flux density are higher than the limiting value G2 and equal to or less than the limiting value G3 as a warning zone. Nonetheless, Molyneaux discloses numerous limiting values stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which values of the magnetic flux density are higher than numerous limiting values and equal to or less than respectively even higher limiting values based on the issuing of different alarms, see [0020, 0032]. Such values may include, for example, 3 mT, 5 mT, and 10 mT, see [0020, 0037]. Therefore, based on the three or more different warning levels of Molyneaux, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the two warning zones of McLaughlin in view of Fan to include a third warning level/zone because the corresponding zones may be understood to have different effects on the device and/or different levels of safety, see [0003].
Upon providing the modification as described, McLaughlin in view of Fan in view of Molyneaux discloses wherein a limiting value G2 is stored in the identification device and the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which values of the magnetic flux density are higher than the limiting value G2 and equal to or less than the limiting value G3 as a warning zone.
17. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 16, wherein the limiting value G2 ranges from 3 mT to 50 mT (McLaughlin discloses potential warning levels of 5 mT, see [0033], and Molyneaux discloses potential warning levels of 3, 5, and 10 mT, see [0020]).
18. The modified McLaughlin discloses the ventilator of claim 16, wherein the identification device is configured and designed to identify an area in which the values of the magnetic flux density are higher than a limiting value G1 and equal to or less than the limiting value G2 as an operating zone (as described in claim 16 above, it would have been obvious to modify McLaughlin in view of Fan in accordance with the teachings of Molyneaux for the benefit of three warning zones; accordingly, the identified first warning zone would correspond to the operating zone; McLaughlin discloses warning levels of 5 mT and 50 mT, see [0030], and Molyneaux discloses warning levels of 0.5, 1, 3, 5, and 10 mT, see [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150258299 – Ventilator placed with respect to gaussian exclusion zones
US 4954812 – Wheeled ventilator stand with flux detector
US 20070057786 A1 – MRI magnetic zones
US 11672934 – wheeled ventilator stand
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H PHILIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-5180. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights