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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the middle value on the y-axis in Fig. 3 appears incorrectly written as 40.5. It appears the proper middle number should instead be 30.5. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
¶51, Ln. 3 reads “one or more mixing chamber (240, 240)” which should read “one or more mixing chamber (240, 250)”
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) 10 and 14-15 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 10 recites the limitation “the first and second time sampling windows” in Ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim depends on claim 5 which has introduced a first time sampling window. However, the second time sampling window is introduced in claim 6, upon which the instant calim does not depend. The instant claim needs to be amended in dependency and/or limitations to properly and fully introduce the second time sampling window.
Claim 14 begins “The method of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 is not a method claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “The method of claim 11”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the set of one or more processors” in Ln. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a set of one or more processors”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed over the prior art. Claims 10 and 14-15 are solely rejected based upon the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a ventilator system including all elements and functionality recited by the instant claim. Of particular note the claim recites a ventilator comprising a first sensor and one or more mixing chambers with one or more other sensors disposed in the one or more mixing chambers. The claim then recites a first time at which both the first sensor and the one or more other sensors measure respective FiO2 values. The claim also recites a second time at which the first sensor measures a FiO2 value while the one or more other sensors measure a FeO2 value. The claim then recites determining a change in FiO2 between the first FiO2 value and the second FiO2 value (from the first sensor), determining a correction to one or more of the third FiO2 value and the FeO2 value based on the determined change in FiO2, and adjusting one or more of the third FiO2 value and the FeO2 value based on the correction.
Closest prior art to the instant claim include: Clemensen et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0359935), Vicario et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0236757) and Jenaro (U.S. Pub. 2023/0030766).
Clemensen teaches measuring both inhaled and exhaled oxygen concentrations at O2/CO2 sensor 110 (e.g. Fig. 1). However, Clemensen fails to at least teach or suggest a first sensor in ventilator 104 which is used to correct measures from the O2/CO2 sensor 110.
Vicario teaches embodiments (e.g. Figs. 3-4) measuring both inhaled and exhaled oxygen concentrations at oxygen concentrator sensor(s) 320, 420a, 420b. However, Vicario fails to at least teach or suggest a first sensor in ventilator 302, 402 which is used to correct measures from the oxygen concentrator sensor(s) 320, 420a, 420b.
Jenaro teaches an oxygen sensor 130 within a ventilator which self-calibrates to account for sensor drift (Fig. 1; ¶0031). However, Jenaro fails to teach or suggest using the oxygen sensor 130 within the timing recited by the instant claim to correct either a FiO2 value or a FeO2 value from another sensor.
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 11, the claim is allowed for the same general reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is allowed for the same general reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1.
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