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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 1 recites “the operational readiness” which should read “an operational readiness” as it is a first introduction
Claims 1-4 each recite “low pressure sensor” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “low-pressure sensor” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claim 1 recites “low pressure system” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “low-pressure system” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claim 1, Ln. 12 recites “the end of the inflow” which should read “an end of the inflow” as it is a first introduction
Claim 1, Ln. 15 recites “the difference value” which should read “the differential value” for consistency with Ln. 13
Claim 1, Ln. 16 recites “the functionality” which should read “a functionality” as it is a first introduction
Claim 5, Ln. 2-3 recites “a high pressure system” which should read “a high pressure system of the rebreather” for clarity and for consistency with how the a low-pressure system is introduced in claim 1
Claim 7 recites “high-pressure comparison” and “high-pressure system” (both with a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “high pressure comparison” and a “high pressure system” (both without a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claims 10, 12-14 and 18 each recite “low pressure sensor” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “low-pressure sensor” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claims 10 and 18 each recite “low pressure system” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “low-pressure system” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claim 10, Ln. 11 recites “the end of the inflow” which should read “an end of the inflow” as it is a first introduction
Claim 10, Ln. 14 recites “the difference value” which should read “the differential value” for consistency with Ln. 12
Claim 10, Ln. 16 recites “the functionality” which should read “a functionality” as it is a first introduction
Claim 11, Ln. 4-7 recites “a first pressure measurement”, “a first time”, “a second pressure measurement signal”, “a second time”, “a differential value”, “a comparison”, “a result of checking”, and “an output signal” which should respectively read “the first pressure measurement”, “the first time”, “the second pressure measurement signal”, “the second time”, “the differential value”, “the comparison”, “the result of checking”, and “the output signal” following after claim 10
Claim 18 recites multiple limitations which refer to the same limitations as claim 10 but incorrectly use “a” instead of “the” (e.g. “an inflow”, “a first pressure measurement signal”, “a first time”, etc.)
Claim 19 recites “low pressure sensor” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “low-pressure sensor” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claim 19, Ln. 13 recites “a breathing bag” which should read “the breathing bag” following after Ln. 2
Claim 19, Ln. 15 recites “the end of the inflow” which should read “an end of the inflow” as it is a first introduction
Claim 19, Ln. 19 recites “the difference value” which should read “the differential value” for consistency with Ln. 17
Claim 20 recites “high pressure system” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction in claim 19 of a “high-pressure system” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Claim 20 recites “high pressure sensor” (without a hyphen) following the initial introduction a “high-pressure sensor” (with a hyphen). One form should be used for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a computer program with non-transitory computer-readable media or computer program product with non-transitory computer-readable media for carrying out one or more of the process steps” in Ln. 1-3 which deems the claim indefinite. The term “wherein” does not define an action and the remainder of the limitation fails to positively identify an action. There is thus a missing linkage in the claim language between the limitation of the recitations of claim 1. Note is made of the language “is provided” in claim 9. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “wherein a computer program with non-transitory computer-readable media or computer program product with non-transitory computer-readable media is provided for carrying out one or more of the process steps”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the rebreather” in Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a rebreather”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a low-pressure system comprising a breathing bag” in Ln. 8 which deems the claim indefinite. Claim 10 has already recited a low-pressure system with a breathing bag. It is thus unclear whether the present limitation is intended to refer to the low-pressure system of claim 10 or to an additional low-pressure system. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the low-pressure system comprising the breathing bag”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the high-pressure sensor” in Ln. 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a high-pressure sensor”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a high pressure sensor arranged in or on a high pressure system” in Ln. 2-3 which deems the claim indefinite. Claim 11 has already recited a high-pressure system with a high-pressure sensor. It is thus unclear whether the present limitation is intended to refer to the high-pressure system of claim 11 or to an additional low-pressure system. The former interpretation appears most accurate. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the high-pressure sensor arranged in or on the high-pressure system”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the high-pressure comparison” in Ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will instead be read as dependent on claim 16 and the hyphenation (or not) of “high pressure” should be made consistent with that claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the control unit” in Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will instead be read as dependent on claim 11.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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”) (claim 10) 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.
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.
The corresponding structure for all of the “means for” limitations of claim 10 is best understood as: control unit 10.
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 § 101
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) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) eight individual “means for” limitations. Each of those “means for” limitation only corresponds to electronic control structures in the disclosed application. The “means for” limitations recite the abstract idea functions of: 1) continuously metrologically detecting and recording of pressure measurement signals (e.g. simple data collection), 2) identifying whether there is currently a situation in which an inflow of quantities of gas has started (e.g. simple data analysis/evaluation), 3) storing a first pressure measurement signal at a first time (e.g. simple data collection), 4) storing a second pressure measurement signal at a second time (e.g. simple data collection), 5) forming a differential value between the first pressure signal and the second pressure signal (e.g. simple mathematical calculation), 6) carrying out a comparison between the differential value and a difference threshold value (e.g. simple mathematical calculation), and 7) determining a result based on the comparison (e.g. simple data analysis/evaluation). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only result of conducting the above abstract ideas is an ability to provide an output signal, which merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the low-pressure sensor, the low-pressure system, the rebreather or the breathing bag are read as positively recited by the claim. (Positive recitations of those additional structures would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.) The presently recited eight individual “means for” limitations of claim 10 are only disclosed as corresponding to generic computer structures programmed to perform the claimed functions. All of the abstract ideas of the “means for” limitations can be reasonably performed by a human mind and/or by a person using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Thus, even though claim 10 is recited as an apparatus comprising electronic control structures (e.g. the eight “means for” limitations) the claim as a whole fails to define any structure performing a function more than an abstract idea which can be reasonably performed by a human.
Claim 18 only recites the same functionality as claim 10 and only further specifies that functionality as carried out by computer program. Claim 18 thus also fails to recite sufficiently more than the abstract ideas recited by claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9 and 19-20 are allowed over the prior art.
Claim 8 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.
Claims 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Additionally, claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a process for checking an operational readiness of a rebreather including all steps recited by the instant claim. Specifically, the claimed process evaluates pressure measurement signals of a low-pressure sensor arranged in or on a low-pressure system of a rebreather. The claimed process specifically uses the pressure measurement signals to identify when an inflow of quantities of gas into the low-pressure system has started and to also identify when an end of the inflow of gas quantities into the low-pressure system occurs. The process then uses the pressure measurement signals of the low-pressure system from the start and the end of the inflow of gas quantities to carry out a comparison against a threshold value which is then used to check a functionality of the rebreather and finally to provide an output signal which indicates the result of the check.
Closest prior art to the instant claim include Berney-Smith et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0231421) and Gurr (U.S. Pub. 2024/0253757).
Berney-Smith teaches a respirator (e.g. Fig. 1) where pressure measurement signals are used to determine when a user starts to breath (e.g. Fig. 2). However, Berney-Smith fails to teach or suggest the particular comparison of the instant claim where a difference between a pressure measurement from the start and the end of the inflow of gas quantities to carry out a comparison against a threshold value which is then used to check a functionality of the rebreather.
Gurr teaches a rebreather (e.g. Fig. 1) including a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 #124; ¶0093) which is used to determine oxygen consumption by a user (¶0095). However, Gurr fails to teach its oxygen consumption determination being applied in a manner which would correspond to the steps of the instant claim. Gurr also teaches a high-pressure sensor in an oxygen supply tank which can be used to determine the amount of oxygen supplied by the tank over time (¶0125). However, the high-pressure sensor of Gurr is meaningfully different than the instantly claimed pressure measurements coming from a low-pressure sensor in a low-pressure system of the rebreather.
The instant application discusses the claimed process as improving on prior art systems which require an external testing device to perform a functionality check on a rebreather (e.g. ¶¶0012-0013, 0020, 0062).
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is allowed over the prior art for the same reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1. While the instant claim does not positively recite the low-pressure sensor of the low-pressure system the “means for” limitations of the claim must be designed particularly suitable to process those value when available.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is allowed over the prior art for the same reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights