DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, Species A3, Claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims Pending
Claims 1-8 are currently under examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: The claim limitation “the top end of the inner cavity is adapted to accept a mobile device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “end” coupled with functional language “adapted to accept a mobile device” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “cavity”
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
An opening with a four-sided shape, or equivalents thereof, as described on Par. 72 of the disclosure filed on 10/31/2023.
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 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 1-8 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.
Antecedent basis for mobile device- second iteration
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear whether this is the same “mobile device” previously indicated within the claim with the limitation “the top end of the inner cavity is adapted to accept a mobile device”, or if this is an entirely new mobile device. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the same mobile device.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1, and as such are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The claims are generally directed towards a spirometric encoding device. The device comprises a spirometric encoding assembly with an exhaust, inlet, two encoder assemblies, and a turbine. The device further comprises a spirometric encoding adapter with a front panel, at least one side panel, and a rear panel that define an inner cavity. The spirometric encoding adapter further comprises a mouthpiece and mobile device operable to measure outputs from the two encoder assemblies and generate breath data based on the outputs.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leydon (US Pub. No. 20170000382) hereinafter Leydon, and further in view of Evans (GB 2581143 A) hereinafter Evans, Brimer (US Pub. No. 20130317379) hereinafter Brimer, and Adams (US Pat. No. 10258753) hereinafter Adams.
(Examiner's Note: When referring to the page numbers of Evans, the page number referred to in this office action is located at the top of each page in the provided copy. For example, a reference to Page 1 of Evans occurs on page 13 of 40 of the provided copy)
Regarding claim 1, Leydon discloses A spirometric encoding device (Par. 74, 80 (spirometric measurement device)), comprising: a spirometric encoding assembly comprising a cylindrically shaped body (Par. 91, 92, Hollow main tube – 206) having an exhaust end and an inlet end (Par. 91, 92, Outlet – 212, Inlet – 202), second encoder assembly (Par. 80, 91-92 (whistle)) (Par. 160, “generating a sound that is suitable for capture and use in accordance with the various embodiments.”) (Examiner's Note: Second encoder assembly interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification as a click assembly (Par. 60 of applicant’s spec.) or whistle assembly (Par. 61 of applicant’s spec.)),
a spirometric encoding adapter comprising a front panel, at least one side panel, and a rear panel (Fig. 12a-b, (visible unlabeled front, side, and rear panels of housing -1202)) defining an inner cavity having a top end (Fig. 12a-b (upper part of Housing – 1202 with unlabeled recess that holds container 1204), Par. 160)and a lower end (Fig. 12a-b (lower part of Housing – 1202 with whistle -1206), Par. 160), wherein the lower end of the inner cavity comprises an inlet port and an outlet port (Fig. 12b (the inner cavity is connected to mouthpiece – 1208 and airflow outlet – 1214 through the delivery channel - 1210), Par. 160), the spirometric encoding assembly is located between the inlet port and the outlet port of the spirometric encoding adapter (Fig 2a, 12b (whistle – 1206 observably located between the indicated interior of the mouthpiece 1208 and outlet 1214 that make up the inlet port and outlet port), Par. 160),
a mouthpiece coupled to the inlet port of the spirometric encoding adapter (Fig. 12b (Mouthpiece – 1208 at inlet), Par. 160); and
a mobile device operable to (hand held mobile electronic device – 2700):
measure a second output from the second encoder assembly (Fig. 27, microphone – 2708) (Par. 160, “generating a sound that is suitable for capture and use in accordance with the various embodiments.”) (Par. 78, (collect information the whistle)) (Fig. 12b) (Par. 192, “… Returning to FIG. 24, in block 2404, the processor may record or collect samples of the acoustic environment of the hand-held mobile electronic device….” (whistle samples)) (Par. 187, “FIG. 24 illustrates a method 2400 for performing spirometric measurements and capturing, recording, and intelligently utilizing a user's expiratory measurements in accordance with an embodiment. Similar to the method illustrated and discussed above with reference to FIG. 3, the method 2400 may be performed by one or more of the processors in the hand-held mobile electronic device 108, or performed by one or more of the processors in the hand-held mobile electronic device in cooperation with an external networked processor (e.g. “cloud” computing resource)”); and
generate breath data based on the second output (Par. 38 (software that calculates airflow rate value based on whistle)) (Par. 187, “FIG. 24 illustrates a method 2400 for performing spirometric measurements and capturing, recording, and intelligently utilizing a user's expiratory measurements in accordance with an embodiment…”) (Par. 197, “In block 2410, the processor may determine an expiratory airflow rate value of the user based on the frequency value of the acoustic signals…”).
Leydon fails to explicitly disclose a first encoder assembly (Examiner's Note: First encoder assembly interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification as including a magnet on the turbine (Par. 8, 61-62 of applicant’s spec.)), and a turbine.
However, Evans teaches a first encoder assembly (Page 11, lines 11-33, “…A neodymium magnet 418A, 418B is located in each recess. Alternatively, the magnets may be fully encased in the arms to reduce the risk of them coming loose. This may be through a two shot over-moulding process or by joining two symmetrical half fans…” (magnets in rotors make up the first encoder assembly)) (Page 12, lines 6-20 “Mounted on the interior surface 501A of the base 501 is a magnetic field sensor 503 for detecting magnetic fields that produces a voltage output when exposed to a magnetic field or opposing magnetic fields. The sensor 503 is located in a position on the base 501 that corresponds to the circular path of the rotor magnets 418A,B, so that as the rotor rotates, the field of the magnets activates the sensor 503, causing it to produce a voltage signal each time a magnet passes it. Thus the sensor 503 provides an electrical signal corresponding to the movement of the rotor and hence the patient's breath flow.” (magnetic field sensor)), and a turbine (Page 11, line 11- 33, “The rotor 403 has a series of radially extending arms 416 arranged to catch in the flow of gas arriving tangentially from the first port 202…” (Rotors make up the turbine)).
Brimer teaches the use of multiple sensors (Par. 61, “The multiple sensors ultimately yield multiple curves for a single spirometry test. The multiple curves are evaluated and then compared or averaged together, in one embodiment, to create a more accurate result.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Leydon with that of Evans as referenced by Brimer to include a first encoder assembly, and a turbine through the combination of references as the use of more than one sensors is known (Brimer (Par. 61)), rotors are known for measuring airflow (Leydon (Par. 12)) and it would have yielded the same or similar result of providing breath flow measurements (Evans (Abstract)) and yielded the predictable result of providing an additional source for measurement of breath flow and improve measurement accuracy (Brimer (Par. 61)).
Modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the top end of the inner cavity is adapted to accept a mobile device, a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter.
However, Adams teaches the top end of the inner cavity (Claim 1, “body portion, a converter apparatus…” “…wherein the body portion comprises a holding apparatus having an interior space sized for receiving and holding the portable communications device.”) is adapted to accept a mobile device (Fig. 5, electronic device – 12) (Claim 1, “an interior space sized for receiving and holding the portable communications device.”) (Fig. 5, holding region – 15, (observable that the bottom part of the mobile device is located within a cavity)) (Fig. 1 and 5 (observable that the opening of holding region 15 for mobile device 12 is defined by a wall – 13 making up the rear side, unlabeled side walls (as seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 1), and the unlabeled front wall (as seen in Fig. 5), which together define sided shape that accept the mobile device 12)), a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter (Fig. 5, electronic device – 12) (Claim 1, “an interior space sized for receiving and holding the portable communications device.”) (Fig. 5, holding region – 15, (observable that the bottom part of the mobile device is located within a cavity)) (Fig. 1 and 5 (observable that the opening of holding region 15 for mobile device 12 is defined by a wall – 13 making up the rear side, unlabeled side walls (as seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 1), and the unlabeled front wall (as seen in Fig. 5), which together define sided shape that accept the mobile device 12)).
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of respiratory parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Leydon, Evans, and Brimer with that of Adams to include the top end of the inner cavity is adapted accept a mobile device, a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of securing the mobile device directly to the apparatus (Adams (Claim 1)) ensuring optimal alignment (Adams (Col. 2, lines 25-35)).
Modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter and operable to: measure a first output from the first encoder assembly; measure a second output from the second encoder assembly; and generate breath data based on the first output and the second output.
However, Leydon does disclose a mobile device operable to (hand held mobile electronic device – 2700):
measure a second output from the second encoder assembly (Fig. 27, microphone – 2708) (Par. 160, “generating a sound that is suitable for capture and use in accordance with the various embodiments.”) (Par. 78, (collect information the whistle)) (Fig. 12b) (Par. 192, “… Returning to FIG. 24, in block 2404, the processor may record or collect samples of the acoustic environment of the hand-held mobile electronic device….” (whistle samples)) (Par. 187, “FIG. 24 illustrates a method 2400 for performing spirometric measurements and capturing, recording, and intelligently utilizing a user's expiratory measurements in accordance with an embodiment…”); and
generate breath data based on the second output (Par. 38 (software that calculates airflow rate value based on whistle)) (Par. 187, “FIG. 24 illustrates a method 2400 for performing spirometric measurements and capturing, recording, and intelligently utilizing a user's expiratory measurements in accordance with an embodiment…”).
Brimer further teaches a mobile device operable to (Computing device – 402) (Par. 80, “Examples of a computing device 402 include smartphones, tablet computers, desktop computers, servers, and other computing devices. The computing device 402 communicates via wireless and/or wireline communication.”):
measure a first output from the first encoder assembly (Par. 61, “The multiple sensors ultimately yield multiple curves for a single spirometry test. The multiple curves are evaluated and then compared or averaged together, in one embodiment, to create a more accurate result.”) (Par. 62, “In various embodiments, the modular sensor housing may contain multiple sensors, for embodiments of the spirometer that include two or more sensors…”)(Par. 64, “The sensor 150 is configured to transmit an electronic data signal to a computing device”) (Par. 84, “The spirometry application 416 includes instructions or modules that are executable by the processing system 404 to receive and analyze data collected from the spirometer 100 that relates to various characteristics of the airflow…”);
measure a second output from the second encoder assembly (Par. 61, “The multiple sensors ultimately yield multiple curves for a single spirometry test. The multiple curves are evaluated and then compared or averaged together, in one embodiment, to create a more accurate result.”) (Par. 62, “In various embodiments, the modular sensor housing may contain multiple sensors, for embodiments of the spirometer that include two or more sensors…”)(Par. 64, “The sensor 150 is configured to transmit an electronic data signal to a computing device”) (Par. 84, “The spirometry application 416 includes instructions or modules that are executable by the processing system 404 to receive and analyze data collected from the spirometer 100 that relates to various characteristics of the airflow…”); and
generate breath data based on the first output and the second output (Par. 61, “The multiple sensors ultimately yield multiple curves for a single spirometry test. The multiple curves are evaluated and then compared or averaged together, in one embodiment, to create a more accurate result.”) (Par. 62, “In various embodiments, the modular sensor housing may contain multiple sensors, for embodiments of the spirometer that include two or more sensors…”) (Par. 77, “data collected using the spirometer 100 is transmitted to the computing device where the spirometry application is used to perform signal processing and data analysis. Although the system 400 is shown and described as using the spirometer 100, the other embodiments of the spirometer 200-300 may also be used.”) (Par. 84, “The spirometry application 416 includes instructions or modules that are executable by the processing system 404 to receive and analyze data collected from the spirometer 100 that relates to various characteristics of the airflow…”)(Par. 91, “The data output module 424 generates data that may be displayed in one or more user interfaces or data forms. In one aspect, the data output module provides health assessment or risk assessment level interface to the user...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Brimer to include a mobile device coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter of Leydon and Adams and operable to: measure a first output from the first encoder assembly of Evans; measure a second output from the second encoder assembly of Leydon; and generate breath data based on the first output of Evans and the second output of Leydon through the combination of references as the use of more than one sensors is known (Brimer (Par. 61)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing an additional source for measurement of breath flow and improve measurement accuracy (Brimer (Par. 61)), and yielded the predictable result of characterizing respiratory function (Brimer (Par. 84)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Evans further teaches wherein the first encoder assembly comprises a magnet embedded in the turbine (Evans as indicated in claim 1 above (Page 11, lines 11-33 (magnets in rotors make up the first encoder assembly))(Page 12, lines 6-20 (as indicated in claim 1 above)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Evans to include wherein the first encoder assembly comprises a magnet embedded in the turbine for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Evans further teaches wherein the device is operable to measure the first output using a magnetometer and the device is operable to calculate a rate of air flow based on rotation of the magnet (Evans as indicated in claim 1 above (Page 11, lines 11-33 (magnets in rotors make up the first encoder assembly))(Page 12, lines 6-20 (as indicated in claim 1 above)) (Evans (Page 20, lines 6-12 (flow rate))).
Brimer teaches a mobile device operable to (Computing device – 402) (Par. 80, “Examples of a computing device 402 include smartphones, tablet computers, desktop computers, servers, and other computing devices. The computing device 402 communicates via wireless and/or wireline communication.”) measure a first output from the first encoder assembly (Par. 61, “The multiple sensors ultimately yield multiple curves for a single spirometry test. The multiple curves are evaluated and then compared or averaged together, in one embodiment, to create a more accurate result.”) (Par. 62, “In various embodiments, the modular sensor housing may contain multiple sensors, for embodiments of the spirometer that include two or more sensors…”)(Par. 64, “The sensor 150 is configured to transmit an electronic data signal to a computing device”) (Par. 84, “The spirometry application 416 includes instructions or modules that are executable by the processing system 404 to receive and analyze data collected from the spirometer 100 that relates to various characteristics of the airflow…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Evans and Brimer to include wherein the mobile device of Brimer is operable to measure the first output using a magnetometer of Evans and the mobile device is operable to calculate a rate of air flow based on rotation of the magnet of Evans through the combination of references as the use of more than one sensors is known (Brimer (Par. 61)) it would have yielded the same or similar result of providing breath flow measurements (Evans (Abstract)) and yielded the predictable result of providing an additional source for measurement of breath flow and improve measurement accuracy (Brimer (Par. 61)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Leydon further discloses wherein the second encoder assembly comprises a sound encoder assembly comprising a whistle assembly that generates a signal proportional to a rate of air flow (Leydon (Par. 80, 91-92 (whistle)) (Par. 89, “whistle 104 that, when blown through forcefully by the user 102, emits sound waves 106 having a frequency that varies with the user's expiratory airflow rate in a reliable and repeatable manner In some embodiments, the whistle 104 may be configured to emit a continuous tone with a fundamental frequency that varies with the user's expiratory airflow rate. In other embodiments, the whistle 104 may be configured to emit a series of pulses such that the pulse frequency correlates with the user's expiratory airflow rate…”)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Leydon further discloses wherein the mobile device (Leydon (hand held mobile electronic device – 2700)) comprises a microphone at a first end of the mobile device (Leydon (Fig. 27, microphone – 2708 (the first end is the bottom end))), the microphone captures sound generated by the second encoder assembly (Leydon (Par. 160, “a sound that is suitable for capture and use in accordance with the various embodiments.”) (Par. 78, (collect information the whistle)) (Fig. 12b)), and the mobile device is operable to calculate a rate of air flow based on the captured sound (Leydon (Par. 38 (software that calculates airflow rate value based on whistle)) (Par. 187, “FIG. 24 illustrates a method 2400 for performing spirometric measurements and capturing, recording, and intelligently utilizing a user's expiratory measurements in accordance with an embodiment…”) (Par. 197, “In block 2410, the processor may determine an expiratory airflow rate value of the user based on the frequency value of the acoustic signals…”)).
Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the first end of the mobile device is located within the inner cavity.
However, Adams further teaches the first end of the mobile device is located within the inner cavity (Adams ((Claim 1, “body portion, a converter apparatus…” “…wherein the body portion comprises a holding apparatus having an interior space sized for receiving and holding the portable communications device.”) (Fig. 5, electronic device – 12) (Claim 1, “an interior space sized for receiving and holding the portable communications device.”) (Fig. 5, holding region – 15, (observable that the bottom part of the mobile device is located within a cavity)) (Fig. 1 and 5 (observable that the opening of holding region 15 for mobile device 12 is defined by a wall – 13 making up the rear side, unlabeled side walls (as seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 1), and the unlabeled front wall (as seen in Fig. 5), which together define sided shape that accept the mobile device 12))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Adams to include the first end of the mobile device is located within the inner cavity for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leydon in view of Evans, Brimer, and Adams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierro (US Pub. No. 20140166004) hereinafter Pierro.
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams teach the device of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Pierro teaches wherein the second encoder assembly comprises a sound encoder assembly comprising a click assembly that generates a clicking sound at a rate proportional to a rate of air flow (Fig. 5, Par. 32, “wheel 520 generates a clicking sound via fluid mechanical motion of the diverted flow which interacts with fins 521 and to induce wheel 520 to rotate in the direction shown by arrow 525. As fins 510 contact post 522 a clicking sound is generated. Wheel 520 acts as an audible signal generator and generates an audible signal in the form of a clicking sound which, in some embodiments, varies in response to variations in the inhalation flow rate through patient interface 110 of nebulizer 100. For example, in some embodiments, wheel 520 is designed such that a slower flow rate will result in a lower frequency clicking sound while a higher flow rate will result in a higher frequency clicking sound.).
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, Adams, and Pierro are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of respiratory parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Pierro to include wherein the second encoder assembly comprises a sound encoder assembly comprising a click assembly that generates a clicking sound at a rate proportional to a rate of air flow through the substitution of audible feedbacks as differing audible feedbacks are known (Pierro (Par. 40)) and would have yielded predictable results of providing audible feedback on the breathing of the individual (Pierro (Par. 40)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Leydon in view of Evans, Brimer, and Adams as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gonnen (US. Pub. No. 20160242701) hereinafter Gonnen and Chamtie (US Pub. No. 20200282161) hereinafter Chamtie.
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams teach the device of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the mobile device is operable to generate a reference tone output by a speaker at the first end of the mobile device.
However, Leydon does disclose a speaker of the mobile device (Leydon (Fig. 27, speaker – 2706) (hand held mobile electronic device – 2700)).
Gonnen teaches the mobile device is operable to generate a reference tone output by a speaker at the first end of the mobile device (Par. 46, (acoustic frequency generator)) (Fig. 2d (acoustic transducer 20a is at the end of mobile device 1)) (Par. 46 (reference frequency)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Gonnen to include the mobile device is operable to generate a reference tone output by a speaker at the first end of the mobile device through the rearrangement of parts from the top to the bottom, and it would have yielded the predictable result of helping to prevent unwanted noise from interfering with the measurement (Gonnen (Par. 54)).
Modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the microphone further captures the reference tone output by the speaker;
and the mobile device is operable to calculate the rate of air flow based on the captured sound and the reference tone.
However, Chamtie teaches the microphone (Par. 186, “typical acoustic receiver microphones”) further captures the reference tone output by the speaker (Par. 180, “edge tone produced by oscillations of the blade formation”) (Par. 171, “single such acoustic generator can be implemented to serve as a pressure sensor and/or a flow rate sensor. In some versions, several such acoustic generators, such as two working in concert as discussed in more detail herein”) (Par. 187, “a first acoustic generator may be located adjacent to or in the patient interface”);
and the mobile device is operable to calculate the rate of air flow based on the captured sound and the reference tone (Par. 187, “the acoustic signals generated by the first acoustic generator and the second acoustic generator interact to produce a combined acoustic “beat” signal..” “…may be demodulated by the acoustic analysis processor to obtain the difference in flow rate or pressure.”) (Par. 208, “detection of the acoustic signal may be facilitated using a mobile computing device comprising…” “…software application stored in a memory of the mobile computing device and comprising software code instructions for analysing the detected acoustic signal.”).
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, Adams, Gonnen, and Chamtie are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of respiratory parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, Adams, and Gonnen with that of Chamtie to include the microphone of Leydon further captures the reference tone output by the speaker; and the mobile device is operable to calculate the rate of air flow based on the captured sound and the reference tone through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of not emitting a sound that is audible, allowing the device to be used while the patient is asleep without disrupting the quality of that sleep and reducing the noise produced of the device (Chamtie (Par. 186)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leydon in view of Evans, Brimer, and Adams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khasawneh (US Pub. No. 20210307645) hereinafter Khasawneh.
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams teach the device of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Leydon fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Khasawneh teaches wherein the mouthpiece is coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter via a flexible hose coupled to the inlet port and the mouthpiece (Par. 8, “The apparatus may include a flexible tube having one end connected with the inhalation inlet and with a mouthpiece at its opposite end. The sensor is preferably located in the gas passage between the inhalation inlet and the one end of the cylinder.”).
Leydon, Evans, Brimer, Adams, and Khasawneh are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of respiratory parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Leydon, Evans, Brimer, and Adams with that of Khasawneh to include wherein the mouthpiece is coupled to the spirometric encoding adapter via a flexible hose coupled to the inlet port and the mouthpiece through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the maneuverability of the mouthpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights