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 of the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in figures 2-3 and 12. The drawings should be provided with suitable descriptive legends. See: 37 CFR 1.84 (n) and (o). The drawings are objected to because the drawings contain blank boxes and other shapes, which are not widely, recognized engineering symbols. Applicant must supply a suitable legend. A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
37 CFR 1.84(n) and (o) permit use of symbols which are not universally recognized, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable. In addition, suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. (Emphasis added). Thus, the examiner may require, on a case-by case basis, the use of descriptive legends where it is believed that such will facilitate a clear understanding of the drawings without undue reliance on the specification for understanding of the subject matter depicted therein. "When possible, a drawing should be so complete that the purpose and operation of the invention may be readily understood by one skilled in the art by means of a mere inspection of said drawing. The necessity of reading the specification in connection with the drawing should be avoided, if possible." See Ex Parte Hartley, 1901 C.D. 247 (Comm'r Pat. 1901).
The drawings are objected to because figures 4 and 8 contain multiple graphs under the same figure label and should be separately labeled for clarity. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 2-3 "the external surface" should be changed to --an external surface--.
In claim 3, line 3 "the individual" should be changed to --an individual--.
In claim 4, line 1 "an individual" should be changed to --the individual-- to correct antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-7 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, lines 5-8 and 11-14 the limitations “the continuous ramp function reduces an audible sound emitted by the piezoelectric-based air pump by at least 50% relative to applying drive voltage as a step function from the first voltage to the second voltage” and “the continuous ramp function reduces an audible sound emitted by the piezoelectric-based air pump by at least 50% relative to applying drive voltage as a step function from the third voltage to the fourth voltage” are indefinite. It is unclear which structure in the claim is producing the audible noise and then determining the noise is reduced by at least 50%. Is the pump in the claim providing the step function or the continuous ramp function?
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (4,527,953) in view of Maske (6,208,107).
With respect to claim 1, Baker discloses a method for managing a change in air flow from a piezoelectric-based air pump (variable drive air pump), comprising increasing airflow by applying an increasing drive voltage to the piezoelectric-based air pump as a continuous ramp function from a first voltage to a second voltage (see col.2, lines 18-23), wherein the flow rate of the air pump increases proportionally to the amount of drive voltage being applied ( see increasing voltage increases pump increases airflow), and wherein the continuous ramp function from the first voltage to the second voltage (note, the continuous gradual increase in voltage), but lacks the method of reducing an audible sound emitted by the piezoelectric-based air pump by at least 50% relative to applying drive voltage as a step function.
However, Maske teaches a method for reducing audible noise from a stepper motor using digital current ramping (see col. 4, lines 64-67 – col. 5, lines 1-2)(note using Ohm’s law (V=IR) the current is directly proportional to the voltage and easily determined by one of ordinary skill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump and respective motor of Baker to include a digital current (voltage via Ohm’s Law) ramping as taught by Maske so as to provide a smooth rotation and increase thereby reducing the noise.
As a result of the use of a digital current, as evidenced by Maske, the audible noise of the ramping voltage of Baker will be decreased by 50% since the current will be decreased and thus directly proportional. As stated in Maske col. 4, lines 64-67 during energizing and deenergizing the current is substantially zero and therefore the voltage is substantially zero and the audible sound is decreased by at least 50%.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarestad (2014/0144450) in view of Baker (4,527,953) and Maske (6,208,107).
With respect to claim 1, Aarestad discloses a method for creating and maintaining an obstruction free upper respiratory device (see Abstract) comprising a device (fig 12 and [0041], lines 1-7) with a piezoelectric air pump (vacuum pump, fig 13 and [0076]) that looks to manage sound made by the motor and pump (see [0111] and [0113]), but lacks increasing airflow by applying an increasing drive voltage.
However, Baker shows a method for managing a change in air flow from a piezoelectric-based air pump (variable drive air pump), comprising increasing airflow by applying an increasing drive voltage to the piezoelectric-based air pump as a continuous ramp function from a first voltage to a second voltage (see col.2, lines 18-23), wherein the flow rate of the air pump increases proportionally to the amount of drive voltage being applied (see increasing voltage increases pump increases airflow), and wherein the continuous ramp function reduces an audible sound emitted by the piezoelectric-based air pump by at least 50% relative to applying drive voltage as a step function from the first voltage to the second voltage (note, the continuous gradual increase in voltage removes the audible sound associated with the step voltage and would only makes noise during initial application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the piezoelectric air pump of Aarestad to proportionally increase the air flow with the voltage increase as taught by Baker so as to provide better control over the air flow as a continuous supply to the user since the ramp function allows the voltage to increase gradually.
Further, the modified Aarestad lacks the method of reducing an audible sound emitted by the piezoelectric-based air pump by at least 50% relative to applying drive voltage as a step function.
However, Maske teaches a method for reducing audible noise from a stepper motor using digital current ramping (see col. 4, lines 64-67 – col. 5, lines 1-2)(note using Ohm’s law (V=IR) the current is directly proportional to the voltage and easily determined by one of ordinary skill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump and respective motor of the modified Aarestad to include a digital current (voltage via Ohm’s Law) ramping as taught by Maske so as to provide a smooth rotation and increase thereby reducing the noise.
As a result of the use of a digital current, as evidenced by Maske, the audible noise of the ramping voltage of Baker will be decreased by 50% since the current will be decreased and thus directly proportional. As stated in Maske col. 4, lines 64-67 during energizing and deenergizing the current is substantially zero and therefore the voltage is substantially zero and the audible sound is decreased by at least 50%.
With respect to claim 3, the modified Aarestad shows the piezoelectric-based air pump is a component of a device (see vacuum pump in connection with the chamber element in fig 12 of Aarestad) comprising a chamber element (apparatus, fig 12 of Aarestad) configured to define a chamber (chamber, fig 14) overlying the external surface of the individual and to apply a force to the external surface of the individual (see [0041], lines 1-7 of Aarestad) when a therapeutic level of negative pressure is applied within the chamber element when the piezoelectric-based air pump is energized (see [0039], lines 1-14 of Aarestad).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Aarestad shows the device is used by an individual during sleep (see [0111], lines 1-4 of Aarestad).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarestad, Baker, and Maske as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fair (8,786,233).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Aarestad shows the reduction of an audible noise (see claim 1 above) but is silent regarding the noise being a click.
However, Fair teaches a driver (102, fig ) with a step function (ratchet mode) having an audible click (see col. 9, lines 56-67 and col. 10, lines 1-4).
Therefore, as evidenced by Fair, step motors provide a clicking noise. Thus, the use of a continuous ramp function of the modification by Baker would reduce the audible noise since the stepper motor is no longer used.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarestad, Baker, and Maske as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (4,983,876).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Aarestad shows all the elements as claimed above the voltage ramp function is a linear function (gradual increase voltage, see Baker) but lacks the drive voltage changes at a rate of between about 4000 v/sec and about 500 v/sec.
However, Nakamura teaches a pump assembly (see col. 1, lines 47-56) with a linear ramp function the drive voltage changes at a rate of between about 4000 v/sec and about 500 v/sec (see fig 8 and figs 11a-f).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed rate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 6, the modified Aarestad shows the drive voltage changes at a rate of between about 2000 v/sec +/- 500 v/sec (see fig 8 and figs 11a-f of Nakamura).
With respect to claim 7, the modified Aarestad shows with a nonlinear ramp function (see fig 11a of Nakamura, where the waveform in nonlinear) the drive voltage changes at a rate of between about 4000 v/sec and about 500 v/sec (see fig 8, and col. 5, lines 29-32 of Nakamura).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jennings (2013/0274638), Al-Abed (2013/0046181), Ludlow (2009/0187124), and Wyckoff (2003/0167018) are cited to show additional respiratory devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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, 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights