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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 04/11/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8, 13 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 6-7, recites “…wherein the oscillation of the oscillation parameter comprises an oscillation signal component which results or can result in a vibration of the valve body…” but should recite “…wherein the oscillation of the oscillation parameter comprises an oscillation signal component which results or can result in the vibration of the valve body…” due to antecedent basis.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites “…the signal component oscillation amplitude, and the phase position of the oscillation…” but should recite “…the signal component oscillation amplitude, and a phase position of the oscillation…” due to lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 5, recites “…filtering the fed-back parameter signal…” but should recite “…filtering the feed-back parameter signal…” due to a grammatical error.
Claim 6, lines 10-11, recites “…relative to the feedback oscillation signal component” but should recite “…relative to the generated oscillation signal component”
Claim 8, line 2, recites “…with a superposition of the control…” but should recite “…with the superposition of the control…” due to antecedent basis.
Claim 13, lines 3-6, recites “…describes the time course of the setting parameter, wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal with the control gain that an actual time course of the setting parameter follows a predetermined required time course…” but should recite “…describes a time course of the setting parameter, wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal with a control gain such that an actual time course of the setting parameter follows a predetermined required time course” due to lack of antecedent basis and grammatical error (similar to claim 18).
Claim 17, line 10, recites “…wherein the setting parameter…” but should recite “wherein the at least one setting parameter” for clarity.
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) 2-8 and 14-19 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 2, lines 1-2, recites “…wherein the compensation signal oscillates with….” is unclear as claim 2 is an apparatus claim but reads as a method step (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II.). For examinations purposes, as best understood, claim 2 will be read as “…wherein the compensation signal is configured to oscillate
Claim 3, lines 4-5, recites “…wherein at least one oscillation parameter of the gas flowing through oscillation system oscillates…” is unclear as claim 3 is an apparatus claim but reads as a method step (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II.). For examinations purposes, as best understood, claim 3 will be read as “…wherein at least one oscillation parameter of the gas flowing through oscillation system is configured to oscillate
Claim 3, lines 6-7, recites “…wherein the oscillation of the oscillation parameter comprises an oscillation signal component which results or can result in a vibration of the valve body…” is unclear on what is meant by “can result in.” It is unsure whether the oscillation of the oscillation parameter can result in a vibration of the valve body as it either does or does not.
Claim 7, lines 7, recites “…and wherein the compensation signal duty cycle oscillates” is unclear as claim 7 is an apparatus claim but reads as a method step (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II.). For examinations purposes, as best understood, claim 7 will be read as “…and wherein the compensation signal duty cycle is configured to oscillate
Claim 14, lines 14-15, recites “…wherein the stronger actuator is assigned to the valve, or the weaker actuator is assigned to the valve, or both the stronger actuator and the weaker actuator are assigned to the valve…” is unclear for what is meant for the actuators to be “assigned to a valve.” It is unclear if it is physically assigned, regulating/controlling assigned or if there is another definition. For examination, as best understood, the limitation would be read as an actuator that is both physically and regulating the valve through assignment.
Claim 20, lines 16-20, recites “…wherein controlling with the control signal causes to bring a setting parameter describing a pneumatic property of the second segment to or towards a predetermined value and controlling with the compensation signal causes to completely or at least partially prevent vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat due to actuation with the compensation signal.” However, it is unclear what is meant by “the control signal causes to bring a setting parameter…” and “causes to completely or at least partially prevent vibration…” It is not clear whether it is the valve arrangement or ventilator arrangement that is being “caused.” For examination purposes, as best understood, the ventilator arrangement is controlling with the control signal causes to bring a setting parameter and the valve arrangement is causing to completely or at least partially prevent vibration.
Claims 4-6, 8 and 15-19 are rejected as they depend from claim 3, 7 or 14 and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter rejected under this statute.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann (US 11786693 B2) in view of Carter (US 5339807 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hansmann teaches a ventilation arrangement (ventilation system 100, see Figs. 1-6) for ventilation of a patient via a patient-side coupling unit (ventilation system 100 has a gas source 250 for providing breathing gas 300 through inlet 16 to valve 10 to ventilation opening 141 to patient 200 as seen in Figs. 3 and Col. 9, lines 36-48 and Col. 11, lines 59-66. The ventilation opening 141 is connected to a patient 200 with a mask or a tube as seen in Col. 11, lines 64-67. Therefore, there should be a patient-side coupling unit to provide gas to the patient from the ventilator opening 141 as seen in Fig. 3), the ventilation arrangement comprising:
a fluid delivery unit (gas source 250, see Fig. 6 and 27);
a valve arrangement (inhalation valve 10, see Figs. 1-6) comprising a valve (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, mechanical connection element 14 and closing edge 18, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6), wherein the valve comprises a valve body seat (closing edge 18, see Fig. 4 and 29-30) and a valve body (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, and mechanical connection element 14, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6) movable relative to the valve body seat (closing element 12 is movable relative to closing edge 18 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and 4 and Col. 9, lines 36-48 and Col. 12, lines 1-18);
an inspiratory fluid guide unit comprising a first segment connecting the fluid delivery unit to the valve arrangement (Hansmann teaches an inlet 16 which is connected via a tube to a gas supply unit of gas source 250 as seen in Fig. 3 and Col. 11, lines 59-63, wherein inlet 16 connects gas source 250 to inhalation valve 10) and a second segment connecting the valve arrangement to the patient-side coupling unit (Hansmann teaches ventilation opening 141 is connected to a patient 200 with a mask or a tube as seen in Col. 11, lines 64-67, wherein Fig. 3 shows a tube like structure of ventilation opening 141 connecting to patient 200);
an actuator arrangement (pump 130 and pump tube 131, see Figs. 4 and 6); and
a signal-processing control unit (control device 150, see Fig. 6),
wherein a position of the valve body relative to the valve body seat depends on an inlet pressure and on a control pressure and influences a volume flow through the second segment (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value and pump 130 to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51. The actuation of pump 130 influences the position of the closing element 12 of the inhalation valve 10 as seen in Col. 14, lines 50-65. Hansmann further teaches a formula for airway pressure PAW including inlet pressure (PEIN) and PS which influences the pressure difference dP (volume flow to the patient) as seen in Figs. 8-10 and Col. 17, lines 9-48),
wherein the fluid delivery unit is configured to generate a flow of a gas through the first segment and to cause the inlet pressure (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from the gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value now, e.g., 50 mbar as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51),
wherein the control unit is configured to generate a control signal and to control the actuator arrangement with the generated signals (control device 150 actuates the pump 130 for controlling the inhalation valve 10 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51, and therefore control device 150 generates a control signal to control pump 130),
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal such that a setting parameter describing a pneumatic property of the second segment is brought to or towards a predetermined value based on the control with the control signal (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to set the control pressure such that the airway pressure preset is set for the patient 200 according to desired variables as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42, wherein the airway pressure is the pressure in ventilation opening 141 as seen in Fig. 6)
But does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to generate a control signal and a compensation signal;
wherein the actuator arrangement is configured to contribute to a generation of the control pressure depending on the control signal and on the compensation signal or depending on a superposition of the control signal and the compensation signal,
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the compensation signal such that vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat is completely or at least partially prevented based on actuation with the compensation signal.
However, Carter teaches damping the valve’s movements to remove undesired pressure oscillations in the system (see Col. 2, lines 24-41), and more exactly, damping the motions of the valve at a variable rate such that the damping forces exerted on the valve are a function of valve velocity that is in turn a function of an additional variable (see Col. 2, lines 44-56). Carter further discusses a “ringing” of a ventilation system as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 4, lines 3-33. However, by using controller 36, amplifier 44, velocity transducer 46, transducer 48, multiplier 50, motor coil 58, motor magnets 62, velocity transducer magnet 64 and velocity transducer coil 66, Carter describes a valve and velocity transducer assembly used to dampen the pressure oscillations as shown in Figs. 3-4 and Col. 4, line 50 to Col. 5, line 21. The controller 36 generates signals that control the force produced by the valve as well as the dampening rate as seen in Col. 4, lines 50-63. When the gap is increased between valve 54 and valve seat 31 to allow respiratory gases to be expelled, the valve force balances the valve upwardly to reduce the valve opening. Carter then teaches a movement of the valve inducing a voltage in transducer coil 66 which is multiplied by the damping rate signal and summed with the voltage representing the target force reduces the signal amplifier by amplifier 44 which reduces the current flow to the valve solenoid as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 11. The dampening of the pressure can be seen in Figs. 5-6 which has substantially prevented the pressure fluctuations as seen in see Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement as taught by Hansmann to include the controller, amplifier, velocity transducer, transducer, multiplier, motor coil, motor magnets, velocity transducer magnet and velocity transducer coil as taught by Carter to dampen the valve to prevent pressure fluctuations that can lead to an adverse physiological effect due to the under pressurization of the alveoli structure (see Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 17).
Hansmann in view of Carter teaches wherein the control unit is configured to generate a control signal and a compensation signal (Hansmann teaches a control device 150 which is taken to generate a control signal as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51 and Carter teaches controller 36 to generate a compensation signal to dampen the valve as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61);
wherein the actuator arrangement is configured to contribute to a generation of the control pressure depending on the control signal and on the compensation signal or depending on a superposition of the control signal and the compensation signal (Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 of Hansmann to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51 of Hansmann and controller 36 of Carter to control motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 to dampen the valve as seen in Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 22-61);
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the compensation signal such that vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat is completely or at least partially prevented based on actuation with the compensation signal (Carter teaches when the force of gravity and the pneumatic pressure acting against the valve 54 causes the valve to drop away and increases a gap between valve 54 and valve seat 31 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 5, lines 22-61. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56. The current flow is increased or decreased based on the voltage induced in transducer coil 66 and used to retard the valve’s movement when the valve is move upwardly by reducing the current flow to the valve and by retarding the valve’s downward movement by increasing the actuation current as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches controller 36 of Carter to generate the compensation signal to dampen the oscillations by controlling the current flow).
Regarding claim 2, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and Carter further teaches wherein the compensation signal oscillates with at least one frequency that lies within a predetermined frequency band (Carter teaches each particular valve system has its own natural frequency in which oscillation or “ringing” occurs as seen in Col. 1, lines 49-64. As such, there would be expected oscillations for any particular valve based on its inherent harmonics/predetermined frequency band. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 9, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator arrangement comprises a stronger actuator and a weaker actuator (Hansmann teaches pump 130 to control inhalation valve 10 and to influence the position of the closing element 12 as seen in Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 and Col. 16, lines 38-51, wherein Carter teaches motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 are use to dampen the pressure oscillation of the valve caused by gravity and pneumatic pressure as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 and pump tube 131 of Hasnsmann to be the stronger actuator (as it regulates the inhalation valve 10) the and the motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter to be the weaker actuator),
wherein the control unit is configured to control the stronger actuator with the control signal and to control the weaker actuator with the compensation signal (Hansmann teaches a control device 150 which is taken to generate a control signal for pump 130 and pump 131 as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51 and Carter teaches controller 36 to control motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 to dampen the valve as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61),
wherein the stronger actuator is configured to effect a greater variation of the control pressure than the weaker actuator effects (the pump 130 of Hansmann has a greater variation of control pressure as it moves transmission device 13 and closing element 12 by controlling the pressure in a control pressure chamber as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 of Hansmann. Furthermore, the motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Cartar are used to dampen the pressure oscillations as a form of compensation/correction to the pressure to remove the oscillations as seen in Figs. 5-6 and Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, lines 44-56 of Carter).
Regarding claim 10, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the stronger actuator is a pneumatically acting actuator, and the weaker actuator is an electromagnetically acting actuator (the pump 130 and pump 131 of Hansmann are pneumatically acting actuators as seen in Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 and Col. 16, lines 38-51 and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter are electromagnetically acting actuators as seen in Col. 2, lines 57-65 and Col. 5, lines 22-61).
Regarding claim 11, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the weaker actuator comprises a magnetic field generator (motor magnets 62, see Fig. 4 of Carter) configured to generate a magnetic field and a movable element (motor coil 58, see Fig. 4 of Carter) configured to be movable by the generated magnetic field (Carter teaches motor magnets 62 used to generate an magnetic field which allows motor coil 58 to be energized to cause poppet valve 54 to be driven upwardly as seen in Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 4-14),
wherein one of the movable element and the magnetic field generator is mechanically connected to a component of the valve body and another one of the movable element and the magnetic field generator is maintained in a position relative to the valve body seat (Carter teaches motor coil 58 to be connected to valve stem 60 and for the motor magnets 62 to be positioned within housing 56 (which is maintained in a position relative to the seat where poppet valve 54 would be placed on as seen in Fig. 4). Therefore, modified Hansmann in view of Carter teaches motor coil 58 to be connected to mechanical transmission device 13 or mechanical connection element 14 of Hansmann and motor magnets 62 would be placed on holding element 17 around closing edge 18 of Hansmann).
Regarding claim 12, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 9, and further teaches further comprising a vibration sensor (transducer coil 66, see Fig. 4) configured to measure an indicator of a vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat (Carter teaches velocity transducer magnet 64 to be surrounded by velocity transducer coil 66, such that any movement of magnet 64 will induce a voltage in coil 66 as seen in Col. 5, lines 15-21. As such, transducer coil 66 can measure an indicator of oscillation/vibration),
wherein the weaker actuator is configured to be activated and deactivated, and
wherein the control unit is configured to activate the weaker actuator when the vibration is greater than a predetermined lower threshold, and to deactivate the weaker actuator when the vibration falls below the specified lower threshold (Carter teaches having a desired PEEP level wherein pressure oscillations are unwanted as seen in Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 18 and Col. 4, lines 3-33. Carter further teaches a “spontaneous” breathing mode which is triggered by a sudden increase of respiratory pressure, wherein the controller compares the new lower command pressure level to a much high actual respiratory pressure and reduces the current energizing the valve as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 11. Therefore, when the control unit 36 recognizes a difference of pressure between the respiratory pressure and command pressure level, the magnets will activate to dampen the pressure and be deactivated when the difference is less).
Regarding claim 13, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 1, Hansmann and further teaches further comprising: a setting parameter sensor (first sensor 121, see Fig. 6) configured to measure an indicator for the setting parameter and to generate a setting parameter signal which describes the time course of the setting parameter (first sensor 121 detects the airway pressure PAW which is sent to the controller such that the control device 150 can analyze the information as seen in Col. 15, lines 26-45 and Col. 16, lines 16-37 of Hansmann. Figs. 7-10 of Hansmann displays the curve of the airway pressure over a time course),
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal with the control gain that an actual time course of the setting parameter follows a predetermined required time course (Hansmann teaches Fig. 9 to show an exemplary regulation in which control pressure PS are set, wherein control device 150 is used regulate pump 130 and control pressure PS as seen in Col. 18, lines 23-35. Hansmann further teaches the inhalation valve 10 obtains a superimposition of the “controlled curve” of Fig. 8 and a regulation component for compensating the actual pressure difference dP as seen in Col. 18, lines 23-35. Therefore, Hansmann teaches control device 150 to regulate pump 130 to control gain to follow the predetermined required time course, and perform adjustments as needed for pressure differences from the desired airway pressure as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42), and
wherein the control unit is configured to repeatedly calculate a value for the control signal depending on the setting parameter signal (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to perform rapid adjustment of the airway pressure PAW to a desired variable for the airway pressure PAW by controlling the control pressure PS as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42).
Regarding claim 14, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches a ventilation arrangement (ventilation system 100, see Figs. 1-6) for ventilation of a patient via a patient-side coupling unit (ventilation system 100 has a gas source 250 for providing breathing gas 300 through inlet 16 to valve 10 to ventilation opening 141 to patient 200 as seen in Figs. 3 and Col. 9, lines 36-48 and Col. 11, lines 59-66. The ventilation opening 141 is connected to a patient 200 with a mask or a tube as seen in Col. 11, lines 64-67. Therefore, there should be a patient-side coupling unit to provide gas to the patient from the ventilator opening 141 as seen in Fig. 3), the ventilation arrangement comprising:
a fluid delivery unit (gas source 250, see Fig. 6 and 27);
a valve arrangement (inhalation valve 10, see Figs. 1-6) comprising a valve (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, mechanical connection element 14 and closing edge 18, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6), wherein the valve comprises a valve body seat (closing edge 18, see Fig. 4 and 29-30) and a valve body (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, and mechanical connection element 14, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6) movable relative to the valve body seat (closing element 12 is movable relative to closing edge 18 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and 4 and Col. 9, lines 36-48 and Col. 12, lines 1-18);
an inspiratory fluid guide unit comprising a first segment connecting the fluid delivery unit to the valve arrangement (Hansmann teaches an inlet 16 which is connected via a tube to a gas supply unit of gas source 250 as seen in Fig. 3 and Col. 11, lines 59-63, wherein inlet 16 connects gas source 250 to inhalation valve 10) and a second segment connecting the valve arrangement to the patient-side coupling unit (Hansmann teaches ventilation opening 141 is connected to a patient 200 with a mask or a tube as seen in Col. 11, lines 64-67, wherein Fig. 3 shows a tube like structure of ventilation opening 141 connecting to patient 200); and
an actuator arrangement (pump 130 and pump tube 131, see Figs. 4 and 6);
wherein a position of the valve body relative to the valve body seat depends on an inlet pressure and on a control pressure and influences a volume flow through the second segment (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value and pump 130 to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51. The actuation of pump 130 influences the position of the closing element 12 of the inhalation valve 10 as seen in Col. 14, lines 50-65. Hansmann further teaches a formula for airway pressure PAW including inlet pressure (PEIN) and PS which influences the pressure difference dP (volume flow to the patient) as seen in Figs. 8-10 and Col. 17, lines 9-48),
wherein the fluid delivery unit is configured to generate a flow of a gas through the first segment and to cause the inlet pressure (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from the gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value now, e.g., 50 mbar as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51),
wherein the actuator assigned to the valve contribute to a generation of the control pressure for the valve (Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 of Hansmann to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51)
But does not teach an actuator arrangement comprising a stronger actuator and a weaker actuator,
wherein the stronger actuator is assigned to the valve, or the weaker actuator is assigned to the valve, or both the stronger actuator and the weaker actuator are assigned to the valve,
wherein the actuator assigned to the valve, or each actuator assigned to the valve is configured to contribute to a generation of the control pressure for the valve, and
wherein a variation in the control pressure produced by the stronger actuator is greater than a variation in the control pressure produced by the weaker actuator.
However, Carter teaches damping the valve’s movements to remove undesired pressure oscillations in the system (see Col. 2, lines 24-41), and more exactly, damping the motions of the valve at a variable rate such that the damping forces exerted on the valve are a function of valve velocity that is in turn a function of an additional variable (see Col. 2, lines 44-56). Carter discusses a “ringing” of a ventilation system as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 4, lines 3-33. However, by using controller 36, amplifier 44, velocity transducer 46, transducer 48, multiplier 50, motor coil 58, motor magnets 62, velocity transducer magnet 64 and velocity transducer coil 66, Carter describes a valve and velocity transducer assembly used to dampen the pressure oscillations as shown in Figs. 3-4 and Col. 4, line 50 to Col. 5, line 21. The controller 36 generates signals that control the force produced by the valve as well as the dampening rate as seen in Col. 4, lines 50-63. When the gap is increased between valve 54 and valve seat 31 to allow respiratory gases to be expelled, the valve force balances the valve upwardly to reduce the valve opening. Carter then teaches a movement of the valve inducing a voltage in transducer coil 66 which is multiplied by the damping rate signal and summed with the voltage representing the target force reduces the signal amplifier by amplifier 44 which reduces the current flow to the valve solenoid as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 11. The dampening of the pressure can be seen in Figs. 5-6 which has substantially prevented the pressure fluctuations as seen in see Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement as taught by Hansmann to include the controller, amplifier, velocity transducer, transducer, multiplier, motor coil, motor magnets, velocity transducer magnet and velocity transducer coil as taught by Carter to dampen the valve to prevent pressure fluctuations that can lead to an adverse physiological effect due to the under pressurization of the alveoli structure (see Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 17).
Hansmann in view of Carter teaches an actuator arrangement comprising a stronger actuator and a weaker actuator (Hansmann teaches pump 130 to control inhalation valve 10 and to influence the position of the closing element 12 as seen in Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 and Col. 16, lines 38-51, wherein Carter teaches motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 are use to dampen the pressure oscillation of the valve caused by gravity and pneumatic pressure as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 and pump tube 131 of Hasnsmann to be the stronger actuator (as it regulates the inhalation valve 10) the and the motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter to be the weaker actuator),
wherein the stronger actuator is assigned to the valve, or the weaker actuator is assigned to the valve, or both the stronger actuator and the weaker actuator are assigned to the valve (Hansmann in view of Cartar teaches both the pump 130 and pump tube 131 of Hansmann and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter to be assigned to inhalation valve 10),
wherein the actuator assigned to the valve, or each actuator assigned to the valve is configured to contribute to a generation of the control pressure for the valve (Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 of Hansmann to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51 of Hansmann and controller 36 of Carter to control motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 to dampen the valve as seen in Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 22-61), and
wherein a variation in the control pressure produced by the stronger actuator is greater than a variation in the control pressure produced by the weaker actuator (the pump 130 of Hansmann has a greater variation of control pressure as it moves transmission device 13 and closing element 12 by controlling the pressure in a control pressure chamber as seen in Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 of Hansmann. Furthermore, the motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Cartar are used to dampen the pressure oscillations as a form of compensation/correction to the pressure to remove the oscillations as seen in Figs. 5-6 and Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, lines 44-56 of Carter).
Regarding claim 15, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the stronger actuator comprises a pneumatic actuator and the weaker actuator comprises an electromagnetically acting actuator (the pump 130 and pump 131 of Hansmann are pneumatically acting actuators as seen in Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 and Col. 16, lines 38-51 and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter are electromagnetically acting actuators as seen in Col. 2, lines 57-65 and Col. 5, lines 22-61).
Regarding claim 16, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the weaker actuator comprises a magnetic field generator (motor magnets 62, see Fig. 4 of Carter) and a movable element (motor coil 58, see Fig. 4 of Carter),
wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a magnetic field and the movable element is movable by the generated magnetic field (Carter teaches motor magnets 62 used to generate an magnetic field which allows motor coil 58 to be energized to cause poppet valve 54 to be driven upwardly as seen in Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 4-14),
wherein either the movable element is mechanically connected to a component of the valve body and the magnetic field generator is fixed in position relative to the valve body seat or the magnetic field generator is mechanically connected to a component of the valve body and the movable element is fixed in position relative to the valve body seat (Carter teaches motor coil 58 to be connected to valve stem 60 and for the motor magnets 62 to be positioned within housing 56 (which is maintained in a position relative to the seat where poppet valve 54 would be placed on as seen in Fig. 4). Therefore, modified Hansmann in view of Carter teaches motor coil 58 to be connected to mechanical transmission device 13 or mechanical connection element 14 of Hansmann and motor magnets 62 would be placed on holding element 17 around closing edge 18 of Hansmann).
Regarding claim 17, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 14, and further teaches further comprising a signal-processing control unit (control device 150, see Fig. 6 of Hansmann and controller unit 36, see Fig. 4 of Carter),
wherein both the stronger actuator and the weaker actuator are assigned to the valve (Hansmann in view of Cartar teaches both the pump 130 and pump tube 131 of Hansmann and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carter to be assigned to inhalation valve 10),
wherein the control unit is configured to generate a control signal and a compensation signal and to control the stronger actuator with the control signal and to control the weaker actuator with the compensation signal (Hansmann teaches a control device 150 which is taken to generate a control signal for pump 130 and pump 131 as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51 and Carter teaches controller 36 to control motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 to dampen the valve as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61),
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal such that at least one setting parameter of the second segment is brought to or is brought towards a predetermined value based on the control with the control signal (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to set the control pressure such that the airway pressure (taken as setting parameter) preset is set for the patient 200 according to desired variables as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42, wherein the airway pressure is the pressure in ventilation opening 141 as seen in Fig. 6),
wherein the setting parameter describes a pneumatic property of the second segment (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to set the control pressure such that the airway pressure (taken as setting parameter) preset is set for the patient 200 according to desired variables as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42, wherein the airway pressure is the pressure in ventilation opening 141 as seen in Fig. 6), and
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the compensation signal such that vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat is completely or at least partially prevented due to actuation with the compensation signal (Carter teaches when the force of gravity and the pneumatic pressure acting against the valve 54 causes the valve to drop away and increases a gap between valve 54 and valve seat 31 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 5, lines 22-61. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56. The current flow is increased or decreased based on the voltage induced in transducer coil 66 and used to retard the valve’s movement when the valve is move upwardly by reducing the current flow to the valve and by retarding the valve’s downward movement by increasing the actuation current as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches controller 36 of Carter to generate the compensation signal to dampen the oscillations by controlling the current flow).
Regarding claim 18, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 14, and further teaches further comprising: a signal-processing control unit (control device 150, see Fig. 6 of Hansmann and controller unit 36, see Fig. 4 of Carter), and
a setting parameter sensor (first sensor 121, see Fig. 6 of Hansmann) configured to measure an indicator of a setting parameter and to generate a setting parameter signal describing a time course of the setting parameter (first sensor 121 detects the airway pressure PAW which is sent to the controller such that the control device 150 can analyze the information as seen in Col. 15, lines 26-45 and Col. 16, lines 16-37 of Hansmann. Figs. 7-10 of Hansmann displays the curve of the airway pressure over a time course),
wherein the control unit is configured to control the time course of the setting parameter such that an actual time course of the setting parameter follows a predetermined target time course (Hansmann teaches Fig. 9 to show an exemplary regulation in which control pressure PS are set, wherein control device 150 is used regulate pump 130 and control pressure PS as seen in Col. 18, lines 23-35. Hansmann further teaches the inhalation valve 10 obtains a superimposition of the “controlled curve” of Fig. 8 and a regulation component for compensating the actual pressure difference dP as seen in Col. 18, lines 23-35. Therefore, Hansmann teaches control device 150 to regulate pump 130 to control gain to follow the predetermined required time course, and perform adjustments as needed for pressure differences from the desired airway pressure as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42), and
to control both the stronger actuator and the weaker actuator depending on the setting parameter signal (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to perform rapid adjustment of the airway pressure PAW to a desired variable for the airway pressure PAW by controlling the control pressure PS as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42 and Carter teaches having a desired PEEP level wherein pressure oscillations are unwanted as seen in Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 18 and Col. 4, lines 3-33. Therefore, both the pump 130 and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 of Carte will be dependent on the desired airway pressure detected by first sensor 121).
Regarding claim 20, Hansmann teaches a ventilation process for ventilation of a patient (Hansmann teaches an inhalation valve for a ventilation system as well as to a process as seen in Col. 1, lines 14-17), the process comprising the steps of:
providing a ventilation arrangement (ventilation system 100, see Figs. 1-6), the ventilation arrangement comprising: a fluid delivery unit (gas source 250, see Fig. 6 and 27), an inspiratory fluid guide unit (see Fig. 3); a valve arrangement (inhalation valve 10, see Figs. 1-6) comprising a valve (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, mechanical connection element 14 and closing edge 18, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6); and an actuator arrangement (pump 130 and pump tube 131, see Figs. 4 and 6), wherein a first segment of the inspiratory fluid guide unit connects the fluid delivery unit to the valve arrangement (Hansmann teaches an inlet 16 which is connected via a tube to a gas supply unit of gas source 250 as seen in Fig. 3 and Col. 11, lines 59-63, wherein inlet 16 connects gas source 250 to inhalation valve 10) and a second segment of the inspiratory fluid guide unit connects the valve arrangement to the patient-side coupling unit (Hansmann teaches ventilation opening 141 is connected to a patient 200 with a mask or a tube as seen in Col. 11, lines 64-67, wherein Fig. 3 shows a tube like structure connecting ventilation opening 141 to patient 200), wherein the valve comprises a valve body seat (closing edge 18, see Fig. 4 and 29-30) and a valve body (closing element 12, mechanical transmission device 13, and mechanical connection element 14, see Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6) movable relative to the valve body seat (closing element 12 is movable relative to closing edge 18 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and 4 and Col. 9, lines 36-48 and Col. 12, lines 1-18), wherein a position of the valve body relative to the valve body seat depends on an inlet pressure and a control pressure and wherein the position influences a volume flow through the second segment (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value and pump 130 to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51. The actuation of pump 130 influences the position of the closing element 12 of the inhalation valve 10 as seen in Col. 14, lines 50-65. Hansmann further teaches a formula for airway pressure PAW including inlet pressure (PEIN) and PS which influences the pressure difference dP (volume flow to the patient) as seen in Figs. 8-10 and Col. 17, lines 9-48);
generating a flow of a gas through the first segment that causes the inlet pressure (Hansmann teaches an inlet pressure from the gas source 250, which pressure brings about the flow 301 of the breathing gas 300, may have a constant value now, e.g., 50 mbar as seen in Col. 16, lines 38-51);
generating a control signal (control device 150 actuates the pump 130 for controlling the inhalation valve 10 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51, and therefore control device 150 generates a control signal to control pump 130).
But does not teach generating a compensation signal; and
controlling the actuator arrangement with the control signal and the compensation signal, wherein the actuator arrangement contributes to the generation of the control pressure depending on the control signal and on the compensation signal or depending on a superposition of the generated control signal and the generated compensation signal, wherein controlling with the control signal causes to bring a setting parameter describing a pneumatic property of the second segment to or towards a predetermined value and controlling with the compensation signal causes to completely or at least partially prevent vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat due to actuation with the compensation signal.
However, Carter teaches damping the valve’s movements to remove undesired pressure oscillations in the system (see Col. 2, lines 24-41), and more exactly, damping the motions of the valve at a variable rate such that the damping forces exerted on the valve are a function of valve velocity that is in turn a function of an additional variable (see Col. 2, lines 44-56). Carter discusses a “ringing” of a ventilation system as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 4, lines 3-33. However, by using controller 36, amplifier 44, velocity transducer 46, transducer 48, multiplier 50, motor coil 58, motor magnets 62, velocity transducer magnet 64 and velocity transducer coil 66, Carter describes a valve and velocity transducer assembly used to dampen the pressure oscillations as shown in Figs. 3-4 and Col. 4, line 50 to Col. 5, line 21. The controller 36 generates signals that control the force produced by the valve as well as the dampening rate as seen in Col. 4, lines 50-63. When the gap is increased between valve 54 and valve seat 31 to allow respiratory gases to be expelled, the valve force balances the valve upwardly to reduce the valve opening. Carter then teaches a movement of the valve inducing a voltage in transducer coil 66 which is multiplied by the damping rate signal and summed with the voltage representing the target force reduces the signal amplifier by amplifier 44 which reduces the current flow to the valve solenoid as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 11. The dampening of the pressure can be seen in Figs. 5-6 which has substantially prevented the pressure fluctuations as seen in see Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement as taught by Hansmann to include the controller, amplifier, velocity transducer, transducer, multiplier, motor coil, motor magnets, velocity transducer magnet and velocity transducer coil as taught by Carter to dampen the valve to prevent pressure fluctuations that can lead to an adverse physiological effect due to the under pressurization of the alveoli structure (see Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 17).
Hansmann in view of Carter teaches generating a compensation signal (Carter teaches controller 36 to generate a compensation signal to dampen the valve as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61); and
controlling the actuator arrangement with the control signal and the compensation signal, wherein the actuator arrangement contributes to the generation of the control pressure depending on the control signal and on the compensation signal or depending on a superposition of the generated control signal and the generated compensation signal (Hansmann in view of Carter teaches pump 130 of Hansmann to generate a control pressure PS in the control pressure chamber 15 as seen in Fig. 6 and Col. 16, lines 38-51 of Hansmann and controller 36 of Carter to control motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 to dampen the valve as seen in Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 22-61), wherein controlling with the control signal causes to bring a setting parameter describing a pneumatic property of the second segment to or towards a predetermined value (Hansmann teaches control device 150 to set the control pressure such that the airway pressure preset is set for the patient 200 according to desired variables as seen in Col. 17, lines 31-42, wherein the airway pressure is the pressure in ventilation opening 141 as seen in Fig. 6) and controlling with the compensation signal causes to completely or at least partially prevent vibration of the valve body relative to the valve body seat due to actuation with the compensation signal (Carter teaches when the force of gravity and the pneumatic pressure acting against the valve 54 causes the valve to drop away and increases a gap between valve 54 and valve seat 31 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 5, lines 22-61. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56. The current flow is increased or decreased based on the voltage induced in transducer coil 66 and used to retard the valve’s movement when the valve is move upwardly by reducing the current flow to the valve and by retarding the valve’s downward movement by increasing the actuation current as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches controller 36 of Carter to generate the compensation signal to dampen the oscillations by controlling the current flow).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann (US 11786693 B2) in view of Carter (US 5339807 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu (US 4617637 A) and Cheng (US 20150328427 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal as a pulse width modulation control signal with a control signal duty cycle,
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the compensation signal as a pulse width modulation compensation signal with a compensation signal duty cycle, and
wherein the control signal duty cycle depends on a predetermined value of the setting parameter and wherein the compensation signal duty cycle oscillates.
However, Chu teaches wherein the control unit (CPU 50, see Fig. 2) is configured to generate the control signal as a pulse width modulation control signal with a control signal duty cycle (Chu teaches CPU 50 to be coupled to countertimer 74 comprising an Intel 8254 for PWM drive which produces a pulse-width modulated control signal 76 that is proportional to the average voltage to be applied to the driving piston motor 28 as seen in Col. 4, lines 67 and Col. 5, lines 36. Furthermore, Chu teaches the pulse-width modulated control signal 76 to provide 255 different duty factor settings from full-off to full-on operation as seen in Col. 4, lines 67 and Col. 5, lines 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement as taught by Hansmann in view of Carter to include the CPU and countertimer taught by Chu for a highly accurate method of controlling the piston (see Col. 3, lines 10-28). Modified Hansman in view of Chu teaches wherein the control signal duty cycle depends on a predetermined value of the setting parameter (Modified Hansmann in view of Chu teaches a PWM signal duty cycle (taught by Chu) which will depend on the desired airway pressure as taught by Hansmann in Figs. 7-10 and Col. 17, lines 31-42).
However, Cheng teaches wherein the control unit is configured to generate the signal as a pulse width modulation signal with a signal duty cycle (Cheng teaches a control unit controlling a pulse-width modulated method for controlling a ventilator and the opening and closing time of an electromagnetic valve in the pulse interval are determined by a duty ratio of the electromagnetic valve as seen in [0014] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement as taught by modified Hansmann to include the control unit as taught by Cheng as it is known to include pulse-width modulation for controlling an electromagnetic valve within a ventilator for preciseness (see [0019]). Modified Hansmann teaches wherein the compensation signal duty cycle oscillates (Carter teaches a movement of the valve induces a voltage in transducer coil 66 which is then multiplied by the damping rate signal and summed with the voltage representing the target force reduces the signal amplifier by amplifier 44 which reduces the current flow to the valve solenoid as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, line 11. Therefore, modified Hansmann teaches the compensation signal as a pulse width modulation signal (as taught by Cheng for electromagnetic valves) and Carter teaches the signal to oscillate based on the voltage induced by coil 66 (see [0031] of applicant’s specification which discusses the compensation signal duty cycle to oscillate while the control signal duty cycle is preferably constant over time).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hansmann teaches the arrangement of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to control the actuator arrangement with a superposition of the control signal and the compensation signal (Modified Hansmann teaches control device 150 of Hansmann and controller 36 of Carter to control the pump 130 of Hansmann and motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 with a superposition of the signals as Hansmann teaches pump 130, pump tube 131 and control device 150 to regulate/influence valve 10 (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 of Hansmann) while Carter is used to dampen the pressure oscillations as a form of compensation/correction to the pressure to remove the oscillations as seen in Figs. 5-6 and Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, lines 44-56 of Carter. Therefore control device 150 of Hasnmann would be seen as the main control whereas controller 36 of Carter is use for correction/compensation) and wherein a largest value of the compensation signal duty cycle is smaller than a constant or smallest value of the control signal duty cycle (Modified Hansmann teaches wherein the largest value of the compensation signal from Carter is smaller than a constant value of the control signal from control device 150. This is due to the pump 130 of Hansmann having a greater variation of control pressure as it moves transmission device 13 and closing element 12 by controlling the pressure in a control pressure chamber as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 9, line 60 to Col 10, line 20 of Hansmann. Furthermore, Carter teaches dampening the pressure oscillations, and as such, the pressure oscillations should not reach a point where it is larger than the control signal from Hansmann as it should be continuously dampened).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-6 and 19 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 1, and further teaches wherein an oscillation system, through which gas flows, is comprised by the valve arrangement (The controller, amplifier, velocity transducer, transducer, multiplier, motor coil, motor magnets, velocity transducer magnet and velocity transducer coil taught by Carter are seen as the oscillation system);
wherein at least one oscillation parameter of the gas flowing through the oscillation system oscillates (Carter teaches each particular valve system has its own natural frequency in which oscillation or “ringing” occurs as seen in Col. 1, lines 49-64. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56. Therefore, Carter teaches measuring an oscillation parameter of the gas as it has to minimize the oscillation using motor coil 58 and motor magnets 62 as seen in Figs. 5-6 and Col. 5, lines 22-61 and Col. 2, lines 44-56),
wherein the oscillation of the oscillation parameter comprises an oscillation signal component which results or can result in a vibration of the valve body (Carter teaches when the force of gravity and the pneumatic pressure acting against the valve 54 causes the valve to drop away and increases a gap between valve 54 and valve seat 31 as seen in Figs. 1-2 and Col. 5, lines 22-61. Carter further teaches minimizing the pressure oscillations or “ringing” by damping the motions of the valve as seen in Col. 2, lines 44-56. The current flow is increased or decreased based on the voltage induced in transducer coil 66 and used to retard the valve’s movement when the valve is move upwardly by reducing the current flow to the valve and by retarding the valve’s downward movement by increasing the actuation current as seen in Col. 5, lines 22-61. Therefore, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches an oscillation parameter with an oscillation signal component that results in a vibration/ringing of the valve body)
but does not teach wherein the oscillation of the oscillation signal component has an oscillation signal component frequency and an oscillation signal component amplitude, and
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the compensation signal such that the compensation signal has the oscillation signal component frequency and the oscillation signal component amplitude and is phase-shifted with the oscillation of the oscillation signal component. As a result, because no references of record or reasonable conclusion thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest all features of claim 3, claim 3 is allowable subject matter over prior arts. Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3 and are considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Hansmann in view of Carter teaches the arrangement of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the valve arrangement comprises a further valve comprising a further valve body seat and a further valve body movable relative to the further valve body seat and wherein the stronger actuator is assigned to the valve and the weaker actuator is assigned to the further valve.
Both Hansmann and Carter only teaches a single valve. Hanson (US 3549117 A) teaches a valve arrangement with a pilot valve and a main valve, however, it would not be obvious to split the actuators into two valves, nor would it be obvious to have two valves As a result, because no references of record or reasonable conclusion thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest all features of claim 19, claim 19 is allowable subject matter over prior arts.
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:
Chalvignac (US 5542416 A) teaches a valve including an electromagnet and a main check valve.
Calluaud (US 6253764 B1) teaches using different types of valves for CPAP treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tina Zhang whose telephone number is (571)272-6956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/TINA ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights