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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12, 14, 18 amended
Claims 18-19 withdrawn
Claims 1-17 pending
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1-17 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 state “providing a pulse” having “first section”, “second section”, “third section”, and “fourth section”. As this would include a single pulse, as shown below;
PNG
media_image1.png
352
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the “pulse” comprise “first half” and “second half”. However, it is unclear what section(s) is/are within each half (“first half” or “second half”). Would considering the first, second and third section as a first half; and the fourth section as a second half, is part of the claimed limitation?
Moreover, the “pulse” (or any of the sections) does not have a time duration. Therefore, it is unclear how to consider the “average” of the “flow rate” or “partial pressure”. Would considering the “first section”, “second section”, and “third section” as “first half” and the “fourth section” as “second half” meets the claimed limitation?
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 112 b rejection
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn. However, in light of the currently amended claims, new 112b claim rejection are now applied.
To understand the applicant’s amendment, an image of figure 1, of the instant application with labels of various section, as below:
PNG
media_image2.png
376
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the instant specification, the “pulse” is two pulses, not single/one pulse, where the first peak of the first pulse is higher than the second peak of the second pulse, and the flow rate at first/second peak remain constant for the duration of the first/second peak of the first/second pulse.
Additionally, each “half” of the pulse would be easier to understand/defined as “duration of the first pulse” and “duration of the second pulse”. As the current language would lead to splitting the one/single “pulse” into two halves. This would lead to having the “average flow rate” or “average partial pressure” at the “first peak” in the “first half” to be higher than “average flow rate” or “average partial pressure” at the “second peak” in the “second half”.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights