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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 9/22/23. Claims 1-13 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/11/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 4/11/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Note: the crossed-through references are not being considered at this time as either the copy of the foreign reference was not provided, or an English language abstract or some other explanation of relevance was not provided.
Due to a long list of IDS submitted, examiner refers Applicant to MPEP 2004 and in particular to point 13 which states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Note that consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 11a, 11b, 11c, 38, 71. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "8" and "10" have both been used to designate the casing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “74” has been used to designate both the canister and the body portion. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. 45 references FIG. 19 (line 2) however, the figures provided only go up to FIG. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 3/10/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: no drawings were filed on the initial filing date and the disclosure as originally filed includes no drawings; FIGS. 2A-D and 4-10 of the drawings filed 3/10/25 include details which are not supported by the disclosure as originally filed and are thus new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the language “range displayed a graphical user interface” (line 6-7) is objected to for a grammatical/typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –range displayed on a graphical user interface--.
Regarding claim 13, the language “range displayed a graphical user interface” (line 7-8) is objected to for a grammatical/typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –range displayed on a graphical user interface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “flow management device” in claim 1, 5, 12, and 13. The disclosure sets forth a flow meter, flow regulator, flow control, flow manager, and the like in para. 00019 as examples of structure for performing the function of ‘flow management’.
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 1-4 and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the new flow rate range" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim sets forth a new flow rate (line 6) and it is therefore unclear if Applicant is intending to refer back to a singular new flow rate or intending to set forth a new flow rate range.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second incremental scale" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second incremental scale" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second user selected flow rate range" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first user selected flow rate range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second incremental scale" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (2016/0193438) in view of Sing et al. (2021/0187223), Ratto et al. (2012/0017904), and Ozone et al. (2022/0264008).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a device/system whose use includes a method (see Fig. 1, 38, 51, 70A-B, 77-80) including controlling a flow management device to deliver gas according to a flow rate range selected from a plurality of different flow rate ranges (see Fig. 1 for example, flow management device 10 including flow generator 11, controller 13 and UI 14, para. 0493; Fig. 77-78 showing a user selecting flow rate from ranges shown on an incremental scale 1320 using slider 1330, para. 1040-1042); displaying a selected flow rate on a first incremental scale on a graphical user interface of the flow management device (see Fig. 78, incremental scale 1320 on GUI 110, para. 1032, 1040-1042) and delivering gas according to the flow rate selected (para. 0493, 1032, 1040-1042). White is silent as to providing a plurality of distinct flow rate ranges for selection of different ranges for a particular patient; however, Sing discloses that it is well-known that ventilators can provide for low, medium, and high flow rates (see Sing Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting, para. 0053-0058) and Ratto discloses that it is well-known that flow rate levels have ranges therein, thus plural flow rate ranges (see Ratto claim 20-21). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the White method to allow for selection from a plurality of flow rate ranges, as taught by Sing and Ratto, in order to provide for more comprehensive treatment of patients who need a variety of flow rates, i.e. low, medium, and high (taught by Sing) with sub-ranges therein (Ratto) and to provide a changing graphical display of the various flow rate ranges for a clinician to readily tell which flow rate range/value is being delivered (Sing). The now modified White method provides for selection of a new flow rate/new flow rate range and delivery of the gas according to the selected flow rate/flow rate range (see above noted citations of Sing and Ratto as applied to White) and changing the graphical user interface display based on the new flow rate range (see Sing Fig. Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting), but is silent as to changing the GUI to display the new flow rate/flow rate range as a different incremental scale; however, Ozone teaches a GUI display system/method which includes providing cascading/drill-down menu selections which show/change an incremental scale of a selection of a parameter (see Ozone Fig. 27A-C, selection of scale of slow, walk fast, in 27B changes the display to show further scaling in Fig. 27C, see para. 0478-0484). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified White method to include changing the GUI to display the new flow rate range, as taught by Ozone, as a different incremental scale (Fig. 78 of White already teaching incremental scale for flow rates, modified in view of Sing and Ratto to have selections for plural flow rate ranges, and now in view of Ozone to change the scale based on the selected parameter range) as this would have been application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results (providing cascading/drill-down menu options for selection of parameters to control).
Regarding claim 2, the modified White method’s plurality of different flow rate ranges includes a low flow rate, standard flow rate, and high flow rate (see Sing para. 0554 and Ratto claim 20-21; obvious to further provide an intermediate/medium/standard flow rate range in addition to the low and high flow rate ranges).
Regarding claim 3, the modified White method includes modifying the display of GUI to show a second incremental scale to allow for precise control when increasing/decreasing flow rate within the selected range (White Fig. 78 showing incremental scale, which changes based on the selected flow rate range, Sing and Ratto, and to provide changing of the incremental scale based thereon, Ozone), and such that the increments are smaller (Ozone Fig. 27B to C showing smaller fine tune incremental adjustments).
Regarding claim 4, the modified White method includes modifying the display of GUI to show a second incremental scale to allow for precise control when increasing/decreasing flow rate within the selected range (White Fig. 78 showing incremental scale, which changes based on the selected flow rate range, Sing and Ratto, and to provide changing of the incremental scale based thereon, Ozone), but is silent as to having larger increments than the first scale; however, this would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the initial selection of flow rate ranges followed by the new selection, i.e. starting with a smaller range and then selecting a new, larger range.
Regarding claim 10, the modified White method includes modifying the display of GUI to show a second incremental scale to allow for precise control when increasing/decreasing flow rate within the selected range (White Fig. 78 showing incremental scale, which changes based on the selected flow rate range, Sing and Ratto, and to provide changing of the incremental scale based thereon, Ozone), and such that the increments are smaller (Ozone Fig. 27B to C showing smaller fine tune incremental adjustments).
Regarding claim 5, White discloses a device/system whose use includes a method (see Fig. 1, 38, 51, 70A-B, 77-80) including receiving, by a control interface of a pod, a first user selected flow rate range customized for a first type of patient and displaying the first user selected flow rate range on a first incremental scale on a GUI of the pod (see Fig. 1 for example, pod 10/4 including control interface/GUI 14 which interacts with controller 13; Fig. 78 showing GUI 110 with incremental scale 1320 showing a flow rate range); controlling, by the control interface, a flow management device of the pod to deliver a flow of gas according to the first user selected flow rate range (see Fig. 1 for example, flow management device being flow generator 11 controlled by 13 and 14, para. 0493). White is silent as to providing a plurality of distinct flow rate ranges for selection of different ranges for a particular patient for selection of a second flow rate range for a second type of patient; however, Sing discloses that it is well-known that ventilators can provide for low, medium, and high flow rates (see Sing Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with augmentation of a graphic displayed for each flow setting, para. 0053-0058) and Ratto discloses that it is well-known that flow rate levels have ranges therein, thus plural flow rate ranges (see Ratto claim 20-21). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the White method to allow for selection from a plurality of flow rate ranges and augmentation of the selected range, as taught by Sing and Ratto, in order to provide for more comprehensive treatment of patients who need a variety of flow rates, i.e. low, medium, and high (taught by Sing) with sub-ranges therein (Ratto) and to provide a changing graphical display of the various flow rate ranges for a clinician to readily tell which flow rate range/value is being delivered (Sing). The modified White method provides for selection of the second flow rate range and controlling of the flow management device to deliver flow based on the second range (White in view of Sing and Ratto above, providing plural flow rate ranges for selection and delivery of low, medium/standard, and high flow rate ranges), and changing the graphical user interface display based on the new flow rate range (see Sing Fig. Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting), but is silent as to changing the GUI to display the new flow rate/flow rate range as a different incremental scale; however, Ozone teaches a GUI display system/method which includes providing cascading/drill-down menu selections which show/change an incremental scale of a selection of a parameter (see Ozone Fig. 27A-C, selection of scale of slow, walk fast, in 27B changes the display to show further scaling in Fig. 27C, see para. 0478-0484). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified White method to include changing the GUI to display the new flow rate range, as taught by Ozone, as a different incremental scale (Fig. 78 of White already teaching incremental scale for flow rates, modified in view of Sing and Ratto to have selections for plural flow rate ranges, and now in view of Ozone to change the scale based on the selected parameter range) as this would have been application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results (providing cascading/drill-down menu options for selection of parameters to control).
Regarding claim 6, the modified White method arranges, by the control interface, on the GUI at least one interactive element allowing a user to incrementally adjust a flow rate within the first user selected rate range (see White Fig. 78 showing interactive element 1330 which allows adjustment of flow rate within range on the incremental scale, para. 1040-1042; modified in view of Sing Ratto and Ozone to provide plural rate ranges and cascading/drill-down options for fine tune adjustment of the parameter within the selected range).
Regarding claim 7, the modified White method includes incrementally adjusting, by the control interface, the flow rate in response to a user interaction with the at least one interactive element (see White Fig. 78 and para. 1040-1042).
Regarding claim 8, the modified White method includes arranging, by the control interface, on the GUI, at least one interactive element that allows a user to incrementally adjust a flow rate within a second user selected flow rate range (see White Fig. 78 showing interactive element 1330 which allows adjustment of flow rate within range on the incremental scale, para. 1040-1042; modified in view of Sing Ratto and Ozone to provide plural rate ranges and cascading/drill-down options for fine tune adjustment of the parameter within the selected range).
Regarding claim 9, the modified White method includes incrementally adjusting, by the control interface, the flow rate in response to a user interaction with the at least one interactive element (see White Fig. 78 and para. 1040-1042).
Regarding claim 11, the modified White method teaches various flow rate ranges (Ratto claim 20-21, White para. 0140) and increments on the scale (White para. 1040) with adjustable increments (Ozone Fig. 27A-C, selection of scale of slow, walk fast, in 27B changes the display to show further scaling in Fig. 27C, see para. 0478-0484), but is silent as to the specific values of the first and second flow rate ranges and increments of the first and second incremental scales; however, these values would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to choose such values and one would expect the modified White method to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 12, White discloses a system (see Fig. 1, 38, 51, 70A-B, 77-80) including a pod including a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (see Fig. 1 for example, flow management device 11 within casing 4 of pod 10, para. 0493) including at least one fluidic coupling within the casing fluidically connected to the flow management device (see Fig. 1 for example, showing fluidic connections to 11 between humidifier 12 and after, and before which connects to a supply of gas); a control interface electrically coupled to the flow management device configured to display an incremental scale of a flow rate range on a GUI of the pod based on a selection for a type of user and control the flow management device to deliver a flow of gas to a patient according to a selected flow rate within the range (controller 13 and UI 14, para. 0493; Fig. 77-78 showing a user selecting flow rate from ranges shown on an incremental scale 1320 using slider 1330, para. 1040-1042); and a removable accessory for use with the pod including a body portion and first and second sides and fluidic coupling disposed thereon to connect with the fluidic coupling within the casing of the pod as a function of the accessory being inserted therein and an outlet (see Fig. 1, accessory 23 with first and second ends/sides on either side of a body portion fluidically coupling to the pod’s fluidic coupling, outlet at the connection to interface 17). White is silent as to providing a plurality of distinct flow rate ranges for selection of different ranges for a particular patient; however, Sing discloses that it is well-known that ventilators can provide for low, medium, and high flow rates (see Sing Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting, para. 0053-0058) and Ratto discloses that it is well-known that flow rate levels have ranges therein, thus plural flow rate ranges (see Ratto claim 20-21). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the White system to allow for selection from a plurality of flow rate ranges, as taught by Sing and Ratto, in order to provide for more comprehensive treatment of patients who need a variety of flow rates, i.e. low, medium, and high (taught by Sing) with sub-ranges therein (Ratto) and to provide a changing graphical display of the various flow rate ranges for a clinician to readily tell which flow rate range/value is being delivered (Sing). The now modified White system provides for selection of a new flow rate/new flow rate range and delivery of the gas according to the selected flow rate/flow rate range (see above noted citations of Sing and Ratto as applied to White) and changing the graphical user interface display based on the new flow rate range (see Sing Fig. Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting), but is silent as to changing the GUI to display the new flow rate/flow rate range as a different incremental scale; however, Ozone teaches a GUI display system/method which includes providing cascading/drill-down menu selections which show/change an incremental scale of a selection of a parameter (see Ozone Fig. 27A-C, selection of scale of slow, walk fast, in 27B changes the display to show further scaling in Fig. 27C, see para. 0478-0484). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified White system to include changing the GUI to display the new flow rate range, as taught by Ozone, as a different incremental scale (Fig. 78 of White already teaching incremental scale for flow rates, modified in view of Sing and Ratto to have selections for plural flow rate ranges, and now in view of Ozone to change the scale based on the selected parameter range) as this would have been application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results (providing cascading/drill-down menu options for selection of parameters to control).
Regarding claim 13, White discloses a pod (see Fig. 1, 38, 51, 70A-B, 77-80; pod 10 with casing 4, para. 0493) including a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (see Fig. 1 for example, flow management device 11 within casing 4 of pod 10, para. 0493); at least one fluidic coupling within the casing fluidically connected to the flow management device (see Fig. 1 for example, flow management device 11, this figure showing fluidic connections to 11 between humidifier 12 and after, and before which connects to a supply of gas) and configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (see Fig. 1, accessory 23 with first and second ends/sides on either side of a body portion fluidically coupling to the pod’s fluidic coupling, outlet at the connection to interface 17); a control interface electrically coupled to the flow management device configured to display an incremental scale of a flow rate range on a GUI of the pod based on a selection for a type of user and control the flow management device to deliver a flow of gas to a patient according to a selected flow rate within the range (controller 13 and UI 14, para. 0493; Fig. 77-78 showing a user selecting flow rate from ranges shown on an incremental scale 1320 using slider 1330, para. 1040-1042); and a removable accessory for use with the pod including a body portion and first and second sides and fluidic coupling disposed thereon to connect with the fluidic coupling within the casing of the pod as a function of the accessory being inserted therein and an outlet (see Fig. 1, accessory 23 with first and second ends/sides on either side of a body portion fluidically coupling to the pod’s fluidic coupling, outlet at the connection to interface 17). White is silent as to providing a plurality of distinct flow rate ranges for selection of different ranges for a particular patient; however, Sing discloses that it is well-known that ventilators can provide for low, medium, and high flow rates (see Sing Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting, para. 0053-0058) and Ratto discloses that it is well-known that flow rate levels have ranges therein, thus plural flow rate ranges (see Ratto claim 20-21). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the White system to allow for selection from a plurality of flow rate ranges, as taught by Sing and Ratto, in order to provide for more comprehensive treatment of patients who need a variety of flow rates, i.e. low, medium, and high (taught by Sing) with sub-ranges therein (Ratto) and to provide a changing graphical display of the various flow rate ranges for a clinician to readily tell which flow rate range/value is being delivered (Sing). The now modified White system provides for selection of a new flow rate/new flow rate range and delivery of the gas according to the selected flow rate/flow rate range (see above noted citations of Sing and Ratto as applied to White) and changing the graphical user interface display based on the new flow rate range (see Sing Fig. Fig. 41, 49, 61, 62; selection touch button 784 for selecting low, medium, and high flow rate with a changing graphic displayed for each flow setting), but is silent as to changing the GUI to display the new flow rate/flow rate range as a different incremental scale; however, Ozone teaches a GUI display system/method which includes providing cascading/drill-down menu selections which show/change an incremental scale of a selection of a parameter (see Ozone Fig. 27A-C, selection of scale of slow, walk fast, in 27B changes the display to show further scaling in Fig. 27C, see para. 0478-0484). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified White system to include changing the GUI to display the new flow rate range, as taught by Ozone, as a different incremental scale (Fig. 78 of White already teaching incremental scale for flow rates, modified in view of Sing and Ratto to have selections for plural flow rate ranges, and now in view of Ozone to change the scale based on the selected parameter range) as this would have been application of a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results (providing cascading/drill-down menu options for selection of parameters to control).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Trigg (2022/0257099) discloses a similar flow management device/pod for delivery of a medical fluid; Stinson (2016/0287762), Stinson (2015/0059871), Kohn et al. (5,197,511), and Kohn et al. (5,435,342) disclose fluid management systems similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights