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
Claims 13-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (claims 20-26) as well as nonelected Species B (Claims 13-19), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Note
The claim identifiers for claims 13-19 recite, “(Original)”, they should read “(Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tarler discloses a device for inducing and sustaining hypercapnia of a subject (The present invention is particularly useful in the delivery of carbon dioxide (CO2) to a subject as set forth in [0002] of the PDF including labeled paragraph numbers) comprising: a tube (The tubing portion shown in FIG. 8 corresponding to the regulatory valve junction 506, connecting the two regulatory check valves to the inhale/exhale port 504 of the oronasal mask 500 as set forth in [0072]); a face mask for breathing of the subject (FIG. 8 Oronasal mask 500 as set forth in [0072]);a gas collection reservoir for collecting an expired gas from the subject (FIG. 8 Exhaled air becomes captured in the capture device 514 as set forth in [0072]); a valve chamber (FIG. 8 The structure of the breathing circuit surrounding regulatory valve 518 as set forth in [0072]) including a first opening (FIG. 8 A fresh air inlet 516 as set forth in [0072]), a second opening (FIG. 8 The opening at regulatory check valve 510 as set forth in [0072]), and a third opening, wherein the first opening is configured to allow an external air flowing into the valve chamber and the expired gas flowing out from the valve chamber (FIG. 8 Fresh air 524 enters through the fresh air inlet 516 and excess captured air 520 may be expelled from the rebreathing circuit through a fresh air inlet 516 as set forth in [0072]), wherein the second opening, coupled to the face mask through the tube, is configured to allow a gas passage between the subject and the valve chamber (FIG. 8 The opening at regulatory check valve 510 that allows the delivery air to enter the regulatory valve junction 506 and enter the inhale/exhale port 504 of the oronasal mask 500 so that the subject may inhale the delivery air as set forth in [0072]), wherein the third opening, coupled to the gas collection reservoir through the tube, is configured to allow a gas passage between the valve chamber and the gas collection reservoir (The opening where the capture device 514 is connected to the structure of the breathing circuit surrounding regulatory valve 518; wherein the capture device 514, the third opening of the structure of the breathing circuit surrounding regulatory valve 518 and the tubing portion shown in FIG. 8 corresponding to the regulatory valve junction 506 are arranged in a circuit meaning the third opening is coupled to the gas collection reservoir through the tube), wherein the valve chamber has a partition for changing a gas composition in the valve chamber (FIG. 8 Regulatory valve 518 preferably controls the amount of fresh air 524 entering through a fresh air inlet 516 and captured air 520 that combine to become delivery air for the subject as set forth in [0072]; the partition being the moveable portion of the valve that blocks the gas and that is responsible for changing the flow through the valve by either blocking the flow or allowing it to pass through).
The embodiment of FIG. 8 of Tarler fails to explicitly disclose a sensor for detecting a carbon dioxide level from the expired gas from the subject; and a controller configured to control the partition of the valve chamber based on the readings of the sensor.
However, Tarler does teach that while the example illustrated in FIG. 8 does not include electronics or electronic sensors, it will nevertheless be understood that in certain preferred embodiments of the present invention such sensors could also be integrated into the passive rebreathing circuit illustrated in FIG. 8 (As set forth in [0074]). This would mean that the circuit could include a sensor for detecting a carbon dioxide level from the expired gas from the subject (Such sensors could include, for example, flow sensors, carbon dioxide sensors, snore sensors, temperature sensors, oxygen sensors, and the like. If such electronic sensors as set forth in [0074]; [0015] also discloses at least one sensor for measuring at least one parameter of the subject's breathing during sleep wherein analysis of a signal generated by the at least one sensor is used to control the quantities of captured exhaled air and dilutive gas that are mixed in a mixing chamber and [0059] discloses that sensors may include carbon dioxide sensors for measuring properties of the exhaled air); and a controller configured to control the partition of the valve chamber based on the readings of the sensor (If such electronic sensors, actively-controlled electronic valves, or other electronic components are used with the passive rebreathing circuit, the device preferably further includes at least a power source, digital memory, and a microprocessor which can be used to control and manage these various electronic components. If an electronic version of the passive rebreathing circuit is implemented, it preferably includes features such as the ability to set threshold concentrations of CO2 and then allow the electronic components to maintain a specified level of CO2 concentration within a desired range of accuracy as set forth in [0074]; The control electronics can be for example a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller, an adaptive predictive controller, or an adaptive predictive feedback controller as set forth in [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of FIG. 8 of Tarler to incorporate the Tarler’s further teaching and include a sensor for detecting a carbon dioxide level from the expired gas from the subject (Such sensors could include, for example, flow sensors, carbon dioxide sensors, snore sensors, temperature sensors, oxygen sensors, and the like. If such electronic sensors as set forth in [0074]; [0015] also discloses at least one sensor for measuring at least one parameter of the subject's breathing during sleep wherein analysis of a signal generated by the at least one sensor is used to control the quantities of captured exhaled air and dilutive gas that are mixed in a mixing chamber and [0059] discloses that sensors may include carbon dioxide sensors for measuring properties of the exhaled air); and a controller configured to control the partition of the valve chamber based on the readings of the sensor (If such electronic sensors, actively-controlled electronic valves, or other electronic components are used with the passive rebreathing circuit, the device preferably further includes at least a power source, digital memory, and a microprocessor which can be used to control and manage these various electronic components. If an electronic version of the passive rebreathing circuit is implemented, it preferably includes features such as the ability to set threshold concentrations of CO2 and then allow the electronic components to maintain a specified level of CO2 concentration within a desired range of accuracy as set forth in [0074]; The control electronics can be for example a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller, an adaptive predictive controller, or an adaptive predictive feedback controller as set forth in [0059]). Doing so would allow for automated maintenance of a specified level of CO2 concentration to be delivered to the subject (As set forth in [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses, wherein the face mask is configured for mouth breathing of the subject (FIG. 8 Oronasal mask 500 as set forth in [0072]; an oronasal mask is configured to cover a user’s mouth).
Regarding claim 4, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses, wherein the gas collection reservoir has a capacity of about 5 liters (For purposes of this invention, a capture device means any device that is capable of capturing, retaining, and releasing a volume of air, hereinafter captured air, that has been exhaled by a subject. For example, this may be a device of fixed volume, such as a hose, multi-lumened hose, tube, or the like; or a device of variable volume, such as a bellows that expands and contracts as air is added to and removed from the capture device and is able to capture and at least temporarily store between 100 mL and 5000 mL as set forth in [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses, wherein the controller is an adaptive proportional- integral-derivative (PID) controller (The control electronics can be for example a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller as set forth in [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses, wherein the controller provides a closed-loop feedback based on the reading of the sensor (The control electronics of the present invention are preferably part of a closed loop control system, used to monitor and control captured air, monitor and control delivery air, and monitor breathing patters of a subject, the sensors transmit a signal to the control electronics through electrical connection. The control electronics process the signal(s) to determine, through mathematical modeling, the concentrations of CO2 throughout the rebreathing circuit, pressures throughout the rebreathing circuit, a subject's breathing patterns, and the current state of the GUI and user inputs as set forth in [0059]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Song (US 20130125898 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler silent regarding the composition or specifics of the tube and fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the tube is a corrugated plastic tubing.
However, Song teaches the use of a corrugated plastic tubing (Song: FIG. 3 The flexible section of the tube is made from a corrugated plastic as set forth in [0018]).
Tarler and Song are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of airway devices for delivering gas to patients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube of Tarler to incorporate the teaching of Song and include, wherein the tube is a corrugated plastic tubing (Song: FIG. 3 The flexible section of the tube is made from a corrugated plastic as set forth in [0018]). Doing so would ensure the tube is flexible in nature, allowing for it to be easily manipulated out of the way (Song: As set forth in [0009]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Neumann (US 20180292501 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses, wherein the gas collection reservoir comprises a valve that is configured to control gas flow to the gas collection reservoir (FIG. 8 Valve 508 that can be a flow based valve as set forth in [0072]).
Tarler as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the valve is a manual valve.
However, Neuman teaches wherein a flow control valve can be manual (Neuman: The active driver may also comprise a manual valve configured to stop the inflow of fluid (e.g. air or other gas) in the passive driver when operated by a user. The manual valve may be positioned between the source of the fluid (for example an in-house pressure hose supplying compressed air) and the proportional pressure regulator. This allows an operator to manually stop the inflow of fluid in the driver system as set forth in [0026]).
Tarler and Neuman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of valves for controlling gas flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Tarler to incorporate the teaching of Neuman and include, wherein the valve is manual (Neuman: The active driver may also comprise a manual valve configured to stop the inflow of fluid (e.g. air or other gas) in the passive driver when operated by a user. The manual valve may be positioned between the source of the fluid (for example an in-house pressure hose supplying compressed air) and the proportional pressure regulator. This allows an operator to manually stop the inflow of fluid in the driver system as set forth in [0026]). Doing so would allow an operator to manually stop a flow of gas (Neuman: As set forth in [0026]), in the case of Tarler as modified, manually stop the flow of gas into the gas collection reservoir at valve 508.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Niklewski (US 20170181664 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the sensor is coupled to a capnometer.
However, Niklewski teaches wherein the sensor is coupled to a capnometer (Nikelwski: The apparatus has a capnometer, wherein the capnometer has a sensor configured to detect carbon dioxide in exhaled gas, wherein the capnometer is in fluid communication with the oral and nasal gas pathways such that the capnometer is configured to receive gases exhaled orally and nasally by a patient, wherein the data is used to adjust a valve as set forth in [0064]).
Tarler and Niklewski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices for delivering gas to a subject comprising a carbon dioxide sensor for controlling a valve based on the data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Tarler to incorporate the teaching of Niklewski and include, wherein the sensor is coupled to a capnometer (Nikelwski: The apparatus has a capnometer, wherein the capnometer has a sensor configured to detect carbon dioxide in exhaled gas, wherein the capnometer is in fluid communication with the oral and nasal gas pathways such that the capnometer is configured to receive gases exhaled orally and nasally by a patient, wherein the data is used to adjust a valve as set forth in [0064]). Doing so provides a method for obtaining data related to the carbon dioxide in the exhaled gases of a subject for valve control via a controller, the information gathered by the capnometer allowing for real-time data gathering and adjustment of the valve(s) based on the data (Nikelwski: As set forth in [0064] and the abstract).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Miller (US 20200353202 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified is silent as to the specifics of the electronic valve control regarding the movement of the partition set forth in claim 1 above and fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the valve chamber is coupled to a stepper motor system.
However, Miller teaches a valve chamber is coupled to a stepper motor system (Miller: FIG. 1-1A A linear stepper motor 24 is mounted to an upper end of each valve housing 8. The linear stepper motors 24 can be independently controlled to move the valve pins 20 towards or away from the sealing O-rings 22 to alter the cross-sectional area of each passageway, and thus control the flow between open and closed positions as set forth in [0098], wherein appropriate control can effectively provide additional stop positions for the valve between the steps defined by the stepper motors 24, thus improving precision as set forth in [0103]).
Tarler and Miller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of valves for controlling gas flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Tarler to incorporate the teaching of Miller and include, wherein the valve chamber is coupled to a stepper motor system (Miller: FIG. 1-1A A linear stepper motor 24 is mounted to an upper end of each valve housing 8. The linear stepper motors 24 can be independently controlled to move the valve pins 20 towards or away from the sealing O-rings 22 to alter the cross-sectional area of each passageway, and thus control the flow between open and closed positions as set forth in [0098], using a software-controlled stepper motor in a closed loop via a PID controller as set forth in [0135] and [0139], wherein appropriate control can effectively provide additional stop positions for the valve between the steps defined by the stepper motors 24, thus improving precision as set forth in [0103]). Doing so would provide a means of valve control with improved precision (Miller: As set forth in [0103])
Regarding claim 10, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 9 above.
Tarler as modified by Miller further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to control the partition of the valve chamber through the stepper motor system (Miller: FIG. 1-1A A linear stepper motor 24 is mounted to an upper end of each valve housing 8. The linear stepper motors 24 can be independently controlled to move the valve pins 20 towards or away from the sealing O-rings 22 to alter the cross-sectional area of each passageway, and thus control the flow between open and closed positions as set forth in [0098], using a software-controlled stepper motor in a closed loop via a PID controller as set forth in [0135] and [0139], wherein appropriate control can effectively provide additional stop positions for the valve between the steps defined by the stepper motors 24, thus improving precision as set forth in [0103]; the partition being the valve pins 20 that move to alter the cross section area and therefore flow).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Liu (Liu et al., "Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) MRI with CO2 challenge: A technical review," NeuroImage, 187, 104-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroinage .2018.03.047; 2019, accessed 9/16/2026), in further view of Williams (Williams, A. J. (1998). ABC of oxygen: Assessing and interpreting arterial blood gases and acid-base balance. BMJ, 317(7167), 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1213, accessed 9/16/2026).
Regarding claim 11, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses that device is particularly useful in the delivery of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to a subject (As set forth in [0002]), and that in an electronic version of the passive rebreathing circuit, as set forth above for claim 1 by Tarler as modified, it includes features such as the ability to set threshold concentrations of CO₂ and then allow the electronic components to maintain a specified level of CO₂ concentration within a desired range of accuracy and teaches nothing that limits the delivered CO₂ concentration, wherein an increase in the CO₂ concentration delivered would result in a raise in paCO₂.
Tarler however does not explicitly teach inducing hypercapnia by increasing a partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide (paCO2) of the subject by about 10 mmHg.
However, Liu teaches providing a user with a hypercapnic breathing period, the hypercapnic breathing period causing a hypercapnia-induced relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the arteries wherein a CVR measurement can be conducted, and that the Et-CO2 during hypercapnia is typically 8–12 mmHg above the value during room-air breathing (As set forth in paragraph 4 on page 107), and that a 10 mmHg increase in Et-CO2 are the most widely used challenges reported in the literature (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 3 of page 108) for measuring CVR, wherein the Et-CO2 is considered a surrogate, non-invasive approximation of PaCO2 (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 3 of page 107), or in other words, inducing hypercapnia by increasing a partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide (paCO2) of the subject by about 10 mmHg.
Tarler and Liu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivering an increased concentration of CO2 to a subject. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the breathing circuit of Tarler as modified to incorporate the teaching of Liu and provide a user with a hypercapnic breathing period, the hypercapnic breathing period causing a hypercapnia-induced relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the arteries wherein a CVR measurement can be conducted, and that the Et-CO2 during hypercapnia is typically 8–12 mmHg above the value during room-air breathing (As set forth in paragraph 4 on page 107), and that a 10 mmHg increase in Et-CO2 are the most widely used challenges reported in the literature (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 3 of page 108) for measuring CVR, wherein the Et-CO2 is considered a surrogate, non-invasive approximation of PaCO2 (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 3 of page 107), or in other words, inducing hypercapnia by increasing a partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide (paCO2) of the subject by about 10 mmHg. Doing so would allow for an assessment of cerebrovascular reactivity given the induction of hypercapnic breathing (Liu: As set forth in paragraphs 1-3 on page 105). (Examiner’s note: While the device as taught by Tarler can be used in the treatment of sleep disorders, nothing in its disclosure limits the invention to just that, and even notes that the present invention is particularly useful in the delivery of carbon dioxide (CO2) to a subject as set forth in [0009] and that It is still another object of the present invention to provide a device and method of controlling levels of CO2 delivered to a subject in a hospital's acute or sub-acute settings, such as for postoperative management of care as set forth in [0008]. Regardless of the invention being useful for a more efficient or effective treatment of sleep disorders, the use of the breathing circuit disclosed by Tarler may be used in conjunction with the teaching of Liu to deliver a specific concentration of co2 to a subject, such as to induce a desired level of hypercapnia for obtaining a measurement. The use as such would not require the breathing circuit disclosed by Tarler as modified to be structurally or functionally altered. In other words, the use of Tarler’s breathing circuit in this manner does not interfere with its disclosed operation in treating sleep disorders.)
Tarler as modifed by Liu fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the increase is in the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide and not alveolar carbon dioxide.
However, Williams teaches that the partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide is essentially the same as arterial carbon dioxide (Williams: The partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide (mm Hg, BTPS) which is essentially equal to arterial carbon dioxide pressure (Paco2) as set forth in the “calculation of alveolar ventilation section in column 2 on page 1215).
Tarler as modified by Liu and Williams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tarler as modified by Liu to incorporate the teaching of Williams and include that the partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide is essentially the same as arterial carbon dioxide (Williams: The partial pressure of alveolar carbon dioxide (mm Hg, BTPS) which is essentially equal to arterial carbon dioxide pressure (Paco2) as set forth in the “calculation of alveolar ventilation section in column 2 on page 1215). Doing so is an aspect of partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide known in the art and would mean that the device would be configured to induce the hypercapnia by increasing a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (paCO2) of the subject by about 10 mmHg.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarler (US 10226591 B1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Liu (Liu et al., "Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) MRI with CO2 challenge: A technical review," NeuroImage, 187, 104-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroinage .2018.03.047; 2019, accessed 9/16/2026).
Regarding claim 12, Tarler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Tarler as modified further discloses that device is particularly useful in the delivery of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to a subject (As set forth in [0002]), and that in an electronic version of the passive rebreathing circuit, as set forth above for claim 1 by Tarler as modified, it includes features such as the ability to set threshold concentrations of CO₂ and then allow the electronic components to maintain a specified level of CO₂ concentration within a desired range of accuracy and teaches nothing that limits the duration for delivering the desired CO₂ concentration.
Tarler as modified fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the device is configured to sustain the hypercapnia for about 25 seconds.
However, Liu teaches providing a user with a hypercapnic breathing period, the hypercapnic breathing period causing a hypercapnia-induced relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the arteries wherein a CVR measurement can be conducted, and that a 10 mmHg increase in Et-CO2 are the most widely used challenges reported in the literature for measuring CVR, wherein It is also useful to note that the repetition of hypercapnia blocks generally do not increase discomfort, as long as the duration of each block is kept relatively short, e.g., 60s. (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 4 of page 108). Given that the device as modified is configured to sustain the hypercapnia for the entire 60 second interval, that would means that the device is also configured to sustain hypercapnia for the interval represented by the limitation “about 25 seconds”, given that the 20-30 second interval in which the device is configured to sustain hypercapnia is included in the 60 second interval that the device is configured to sustain hypercapnia as taught by Liu.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the breathing circuit of Tarler as modified to incorporate the teaching of Liu and provide a user with a hypercapnic breathing period, the hypercapnic breathing period causing a hypercapnia-induced relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the arteries wherein a CVR measurement can be conducted, and that a 10 mmHg increase in Et-CO2 are the most widely used challenges reported in the literature for measuring CVR, wherein It is also useful to note that the repetition of hypercapnia blocks generally do not increase discomfort, as long as the duration of each block is kept relatively short, e.g., 60s. (Liu: As set forth in paragraph 4 of page 108). Given that the device as modified is configured to sustain the hypercapnia for the entire 60 second interval, that would means that the device is also configured to sustain hypercapnia for the interval represented by the limitation “about 25 seconds”, given that the 20-30 second interval in which the device is configured to sustain hypercapnia is included in the 60 second interval that the device is configured to sustain hypercapnia as taught by Liu. Doing so would allow for an assessment of cerebrovascular reactivity given the inducted and sustained state of hypercapnic breathing (Liu: As set forth in paragraphs 1-3 on page 105).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights