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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 7/09/2025. Since the initial filing claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 16-17, 23, 25-26 have been amended, no claims have been added nor canceled. Thus claims 1-29 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “108” (FIGs 1, 4, 5) has been used to designate both the “second manifold assembly” and “mini valves”
reference character “138” (FIGs 1, 2A, 3, 4, 5) has been used to designate both the “air flow sensor” and “outlet manifold”
reference character “140” (FIG 2A) has been used to designate both the “an existing ventilator” and “accessory ventilator”
reference character “13” (FIG 2A/2B) lack any corresponding structure within the specifications
reference character “116” (FIGs 2A/B, 3, 5) has been used to designate both the “master air valve” and “a manifold”
reference character “CV” (FIG 2B) lacks any corresponding structure within the specifications
reference character “162” and “166” (FIGs 4, 5) are both labeled as “intake port of lower manifold 128”
reference characters “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “11”, “13”, “15”, and “17” (FIG 6) lack any corresponding structure within the specifications
reference character “128” (FIG 4) labeled as a “lower manifold” but is pointing to a manifold branch
FIGS 2A, FIG 2B, and 3 are both meant to display the lower manifold assembly per the specifications but have different structures
FIG 2A label is located within the figure drawing and should be separated and located at the bottom of the figure sheet
FIGS 1-3 all display empty boxes with numbers and give no clarity to the structure that the labeling is meant to represent
FIGS 4 and 5 are both lacking in clarity as it is hard to see any specific part with the shading and gray coloring of the image
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“second master air valve” recited in claim 1 and 7
“second plurality of patient outlets” recited in claim 1
“patient air delivery system” recited in claim 1, 3, and 12-15
“control system” recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 16-17, 19, 21, 23, and 26
“first plurality of outlet branches” recited in claims 2 and 25
“second plurality of outlet branches” recited in claims 2 and 25
“at least one tubing” recited in claim 10
“ventilator branch” recited in claim 16
“valve controller” recited in claims 16 and 18
“pressure release valves” recited in claim 20
“plurality of one-way valves” recited in claim 21
“plurality of flowmeters” recited in claim 25
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 18, and 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 reads “connected to a patient air delivery system” (ln 6) and should read --connected to the patient air delivery system--
Claim 6 reads “a plurality of patients” (ln 7) and should read --the plurality of patients--
Claim 18 reads “the valve controller” (ln 1) and should be corrected to --a valve controller--
Claim 25 reads “connected to a respective outlet branch” (ln 6) and should be corrected to --connected to the respective outlet branch--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim may only refer to proceeding claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim may only refer to other claims in the alternative. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
First plurality of patient outlets (claim 6)
Second plurality of patient outlets (claim 10)
First proportional air valve (claim 1 ln 12)
Second proportional air valve (claim 1 ln 15)
Pressure release valves (claim 21 ln 2)
Electronic user interface (claim 23 ln 3)
Safety feedback loop (claim 26 ln 4)
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 1-29 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 "a first outlet manifold assembly configured and adapted to be in fluidic connection with the intake manifold assembly, the first outlet manifold assembly including a first plurality of patient outlets, the first outlet manifold assembly being configured and adapted to deliver continuous airflow” (ln 4-7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the first outlet manifold is meant to be the lower manifold or the upper manifold as the drawing shows the only an upper and lower manifold connected to said patient outlets. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “a second outlet manifold assembly configured and adapted to be in fluidic connection with the intake manifold assembly, the second outlet manifold assembly including a second plurality of patient outlets, the second outlet manifold assembly being configured and adapted to deliver periodic, sequential or simultaneous airflow” (ln 8-11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the first outlet manifold is meant to be the lower manifold or the upper manifold as the drawing shows the only an upper and lower manifold connected to said patient outlets. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “a first proportional master air valve configured to provide precise airflow to the first outlet manifold assembly, the first proportional master air valve being in fluidic connection with at least the first outlet manifold assembly; a second proportional master air valve configured to provide precise airflow to the second outlet manifold assembly, the second proportional master air valve being in fluidic connection with at least the second outlet manifold assembly” (ln 12-17). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear where the first master outlet valve is meant to be located as the drawings show the first master outlet valve only in the second outlet manifold assembly and not the first outlet manifold assembly; additionally, the drawings and specifications lack clarity in where exactly the second master valve assembly is located and how it in turn interacts with the second manifold assembly. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “a control system” (ln 18). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how the control system is connected to the device and how the control system interacts with the manifolds of device as well as the first and second proportional master air valves. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each of the first plurality of patient outlets are fluidically equidistant from the first proportional master air valve” (ln 26-27). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the distance between the first plurality of patient outlets and the first proportional master air valve as the examiner is unable to locate precisely where the first proportional air valve fits into the device. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each of the second plurality of patient outlets are fluidically equidistant from the second proportional master air valve” (ln 28-29). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the distance between the second plurality of patient outlets and the second proportional master air valve as the examiner is unable to locate precisely where the second proportional air valve fits into the device. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “multifunctional ventilation device is configured and adapted to synchronize operations of the proportional master air valves” (ln 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It Is unclear where and how the first and second master air valves relate to each other and therefore it is unclear how they both can be synchronized with the device. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the multifunctional ventilation device is configured and adapted to operate in a pressurized air mode (P-Mode) such that the multifunctional ventilation device functions as a standalone ventilator” (ln 1-3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It Is unclear where and how the device is generating an air pressure with no air pump or pressure system attached to the intake manifold assembly. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a plurality of pressure release valves configured and adapted to automatically depressurize a portion of the intake manifold assembly, the first outlet manifold assembly, or the second outlet manifold assembly in response to excess pressure buildup” (ln 2-4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the first outlet manifold is meant to be the lower manifold or the upper manifold as the drawing shows the only an upper and lower manifold connected to displaying a blow off valve (Examiner’s note: assuming that by “blow off valve” the Applicant is meaning pressure release valves). As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the control system includes a plurality of one-way valves configured to prevent cross-contamination” (ln 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the plurality of valves are meant to be one-way vs which of the plurality of valves are meant to be two-way valves. As neither the specification nor the drawings are clear enough to make any assumptions, this examiner is unable to interpret the claim limitation.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the second outlet manifold assembly includes a second plurality of outlet branches” (ln 4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is meaning to say that the second outlet manifold assembly has a first plurality of outlet branches and a second plurality of outlet branches or if the Applicant is simply using the term “second” within the limitation as nomenclature and stating that the second outlet manifold assembly has a plurality of outlet branches.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burkot et al. (US 20180333554 A1) teaches of a oxygen therapy system that includes an intake manifold for oxygen distribution and a patient manifold set to distribute the oxygen/air to a multitude of patients at the same time.
Lemer (US 6474334 B1) teaches a multi-person ventilation system that connects to a single ventilator. The manifold of the ventilator connects to a series of valve controllers that separate the air into two pipes (i.e. one valve controls two patients’ air supply). This allows the ventilator to give air to multiple patients at once while still being able to give different air levels to different users.
VENKATARAMAN et al. (US 20210322707 A1) traches of a ventilation system with a splitter module capable of delivery air to multiple patients at once, while still delivery each patient a unique set of parameters for their ventilation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B RESTAINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 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, 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.
/DANIELLE B RESTAINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights