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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the invention as claimed in claims 1-10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently the drawings include are a series of five flow charts which do not depict any of the claimed structures recited in claims 1-10 in such a way to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to have a proper understanding of the disclosed invention (see MPEP 608.02(d)). 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 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 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Apparatus for generating”. This limitation should be amended to recite “an apparatus for generating” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first measuring device of a first ozone concentration”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first concentration measuring device” to provide clarity in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second measuring device of a third ozone concentration”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a second concentration measuring device” to provide clarity in the claims.
Claims 2-10 recite the limitation “Apparatus according to claim 1”. The limitations should be amended to recite “the apparatus according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
device for collecting in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, no specific structures are recited as being “the device for collecting”.
device for discharging in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, no specific structures are recited as being “the device for discharging”.
first measuring device for measuring a first ozone concentration in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “measuring device” is a cuvette as recited on page 4 of Applicant’s specification.
first pressure measuring device for supplying a pressure measurement in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “pressure measuring device” is a pressure sensor as recited on page 4 of Applicant’s specification.
first flow rate measuring device for supplying a flow rate measurement in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “flow rate measuring device” is a flow meter as recited on page 4 of Applicant’s specification.
second measuring device for measuring a third ozone concentration in claim 1. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “measuring device” is a cuvette as recited on page 4 of Applicant’s specification.
second pressure measuring device for supplying a pressure measurement in claim 2. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “pressure measuring device” is a pressure sensor as recited on page 7 of Applicant’s specification.
second flow rate measuring device for supplying a flow rate measurement in claim 3. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to encompass the identified “flow rate measuring device” is a flow meter as recited on page 5 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “catalyst” in line 2. For clarity of the record, Examiner is interpreting this structure as a filter in view of Applicant’s specification page 5.
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 1-10 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 “an ozone generator”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone generator is the same structure as the “apparatus for generating ozone” or a new structure. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ozone generated” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim limitations “device for collecting the ozone” and “device for discharging the ozone” each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the function. As discussed above, Applicant’s specification does not describe any structures which are encompassed by the claimed “devices”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ozone” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone recited in line 3 is the same as “the ozone generated” recited earlier in the claim or a new ozone. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized by” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to which of the previously recited structures “characterized by” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ozone concentration" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an ozone concentration”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first system for measuring the ozone concentration”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because based on the figures, the first system is positioned upstream of the ozone generator. Thus, it is unclear how the first system can measure an ozone concentration given the oxygen cylinder produces oxygen (not ozone), and the first system is at a position which is upstream of the ozone generator and does not receive generated ozone. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first ozone concentration” in line 5. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the first ozone concentration is the same ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the gas” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a gas”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first ozone concentration” in line 7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the first ozone concentration is the same first ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, the same ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 9. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of line 9 is the same first ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, the same ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said control system calculates a second ozone concentration based on said first ozone concentration”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear, given said first ozone concentration appears to not be an ozone concentration as discussed above, how a second ozone concentration can be calculated if there is no first ozone concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 14. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of line 14 is the same first ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, the same ozone concentration recited earlier in the claim, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the excess ozone" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the ozone”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the value" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a value”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a preset value”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what measurement a preset value is referring to (i.e. is this a preset value of the third ozone concentration, pressure, flow rate, of the second ozone concentration, the first ozone concentration, time, etc.). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “it blocks said apparatus”. The use of the pronoun “it” renders the claim indefinite as to which previously recited structure the pronoun is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the control system blocks said apparatus”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of line 2 is the same first, second, or third ozone concentrations, the same (general) ozone concentration recited earlier in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the gas” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the ozone”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a third ozone concentration”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the third ozone concentration recited in claim 2 is the same third ozone concentration recited in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same third concentration.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of line 2 is the same first, second, or third ozone concentrations, the same (general) ozone concentration recited earlier in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the gas” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the ozone”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a third ozone concentration”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the third ozone concentration recited in claim 2 is the same third ozone concentration recited in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same third concentration.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the excess ozone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the ozone”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the flow rate of oxygen" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a flow rate of oxygen”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flow rate of oxygen" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a flow rate of oxygen”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of claim 7 is the same first, second, or third ozone concentrations, the same (general) ozone concentration recited earlier in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of claim 8 is the same first, second, or third ozone concentrations, the same (general) ozone concentration recited earlier in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the ultraviolet” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an ultraviolet”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the ozone concentration” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the ozone concentration of claim 9 is the same first, second, or third ozone concentrations, the same (general) ozone concentration recited earlier in claim 1, or a new concentration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the ultraviolet” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an ultraviolet”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the range” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a range”.
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.
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) 1-4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2014/0030152 A1) (hereinafter Nishimura) in view of Cardelius et al. (US 2012/0312302 A1) (hereinafter Cardelius).
In regards to claim 1, Nishimura discloses apparatus for generating ozone (10; see [0089]; see figure 5) comprising: an ozone generator (1; see [0090]; see figure 1); a device (open space within 1; see figure 1) for collecting the ozone generated (the open space within 1 collects generated ozone before it is sent through 15 to the treatment apparatus); a device (15; see [0114]; see figure 5) for discharging the ozone (see [0114]); characterized by comprising a first system (99; see [0072]; see figure 1): a first flow rate measuring device (3; see [0072]; see figure 1) to supply a flow rate measurement (a flow-rate-detector/flow-rate-adjuster including a mass flow controller (MFC); see [0035]; thus, 3 comprises a flow rate detector for supplying a flow rate measurement); a control system (8; see [0123]; see figure 5) of said apparatus; and
by comprising a second system (output gas pipe system line; see [0022]) for measuring the ozone concentration (see [0022]) comprising a second measuring device (75; see [0027]; see figure 28) of a third ozone concentration located downstream of said device for discharging the excess ozone (75 is located along the output gas pipe system line (i.e. 15) and thus, is downstream from 15); said control system (8) compares the value of said third ozone concentration with a preset value and if said value of said third ozone concentration exceeds said preset value it blocks said apparatus (see [0138-0139]; 8 opens and closes valves dependent on flow and concentration (See [0105])).
Nishimura further discloses the second system (output gas pipe system line) for measuring the ozone concentration comprises a second measuring device (75), a second flow rate measuring device (67; see [0027]; see figure 28), and a second pressure measuring device (62; see [0027]; see figure 28).
Nishimura does not disclose the first system is used for measuring the ozone concentration comprising a first measuring device (20) of a first ozone concentration; a first pressure measuring device (14) of the gas entering said first measuring device (20) of a first ozone concentration to supply a pressure measurement; the first flow rate measuring device of the gas entering said first measuring device (20) and said control system calculates a second ozone concentration based on said first ozone concentration, on said pressure measurement, and on said flow rate measurement.
However, Cardelius teaches an analogous apparatus (breathing apparatus; see [abstract]; see figure 1a) comprising an analogous generator (30; see [0042]; see figure 1a), first system for measuring (20; see [0043]; see figure 1a), a second system for measuring (40; see [0042]; see figure 1a), and control system (50; see [0042]; see figure 1a) wherein the first and second systems are identical measuring systems (see [0103]) for the purpose of allowing the measurement values of the first and second sensor units to be compared such that: if a deviation is detected in the delivered concentration of a substance, the control unit may immediately correct the delivered dose by means of a regulatory loop, and alternatively, or in addition activate suitable measures such as alerting the user, or shut down or bypass the dose delivery device (not shown) if the detected concentration is a potential patient hazard (see [0046-0047]).
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 first system as disclosed by Nishimura and to have included the same measuring devices of the second system for measuring the ozone concentration (i.e. the measuring device of an ozone concentration, and the pressure measuring device) as taught by the use of identical sensors as taught by Cardeluis in order to have provided an improved apparatus for generating ozone that would add the benefit of allowing the measurement values of the first and second sensor units to be compared such that: if a deviation is detected in the delivered concentration of a substance, the control unit may immediately correct the delivered dose by means of a regulatory loop, and alternatively, or in addition activate suitable measures such as alerting the user, or shut down or bypass the dose delivery device (not shown) if the detected concentration is a potential patient hazard (see [0046-0047]).
Thus, for clarity, as now combined Nishimura as modified by Cardelius discloses the first system (99 of Nishimura as now modified in view of Cardelius to include similar sensors to that of the output gas pipe system line) is used for measuring the ozone concentration (99 of Nishimura modified to include 75 (a concentration detector) is used to measure concentration) comprising a first measuring device (75 of 99 of Nishimura as now modified in view of Cardelius) of a first ozone concentration; a first pressure measuring device (62 of 99 of Nishimura as now modified in view of Cardelius) of the gas entering said first measuring device of a first ozone concentration to supply a pressure measurement (62 measures a pressure and thus, measures a pressure of the gas entering 75); the first flow rate measuring device (3) of the gas entering said first measuring device (20) to supply a flow rate measurement (3 provides flow rate measurements and thus, measures a flow rate of the gas entering 75), and said control system calculates a second ozone concentration based on said first ozone concentration, on said pressure measurement, and on said flow rate measurement (8 determines a predetermined ozone concentration of the generation unit based on flow, concentration, and pressure (See Nishimura [0035]) thus, as now modified the control system calculates a first ozone concentration sensed by the additional 75, and a second ozone concentration calculated by the differences between the two sets of sensors which detect concentration, pressure, and flow rate respectively).
In regards to claim 2, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized in that said second system for measuring the ozone concentration (output gas pipe system line) comprises a second pressure measuring device (62; see [0027]; see figure 28) of the gas entering said second measuring device (75; 62 measures a pressure and thus, measures a pressure of the gas entering 75) of a third ozone concentration to supply a pressure measurement (62 being a pressure detector, supplies a pressure measurement; see [0027]).
In regards to claim 3, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized in that said second system for measuring the ozone concentration (output gas pipe system line) comprises a second flow rate measuring device (67; see [0027]; see figure 28) of the gas entering said second measuring device (75) of the ozone concentration to supply a flow rate measurement (67 is a flow rate detector and thus, supplies a flow rate measurement; see [0027]).
In regards to claim 4, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized in that said device for discharging the excess ozone (15) comprises a catalyst (51; see [0096]; see figure 23).
In regards to claim 10, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized in that said ozone generator (1) can supply ozone in the range from 0-100 µg/ml (see figure 2 that 1 is capable of supplying ozone from 0-280g/m3; g/m3 to µg/ml has a 1:1 ratio and thus, Nishimura discloses 1 is capable of supplying ozone from 0-280 µg/ml).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Cardelius as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tobia et al. (US 5,662,099 A).
In regards to claim 5, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized by comprising an oxygen cylinder (991; see [0072]; see figure 1) followed by a valve (992; see [0072]) for regulating the flow rate of oxygen (see [0072]).
Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius does not disclose the valve is a proportional solenoid valve.
However, Tobia teaches an analogous apparatus (10; see [col 2 ln 60]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous oxygen provider (38; see [col 3 ln 20]; see figure 1), an oxygen source (12; see [col 2 ln 60]; see figure 1), and valve (18; see [col 2 ln 63]; see figure 1); wherein the valve is a proportional solenoid valve (18 is preferably a proportional solenoid valve; see [col 2 ln 64]) for the purpose of providing a valve which controls the magnitude of gas flow into the apparatus from the oxygen source (see [col 2 ln 65]).
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 valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius and to have substituted the valve for the proportional solenoid valve as taught by Tobia in order to have provided an improved apparatus that would add the benefit of providing a valve which controls the magnitude of gas flow into the apparatus from the oxygen source (see [col 2 ln 65]).
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius for the proportional solenoid valve taught by Tobia yields the predictable results of controlling the magnitude of gas flowing into the system from the gas source (see Nishimura [0072] and Tobia [col 2 ln 65]).
In regards to claim 6, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized by comprising a valve (992; see [0072]) for opening/closing the flow of oxygen located upstream of said ozone generator (1; see [0072]).
Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius does not disclose the valves is a solenoid valve.
However, Tobia teaches an analogous apparatus (10; see [col 2 ln 60]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous oxygen provider (38; see [col 3 ln 20]; see figure 1), an oxygen source (12; see [col 2 ln 60]; see figure 1), and valve (18; see [col 2 ln 63]; see figure 1); wherein the valve is a solenoid valve (18 is preferably a proportional solenoid valve; see [col 2 ln 64]) for the purpose of providing a valve which controls the magnitude of gas flow into the apparatus from the oxygen source (see [col 2 ln 65]).
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 valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius and to have substituted the valve for the solenoid valve as taught by Tobia in order to have provided an improved apparatus that would add the benefit of providing a valve which controls the magnitude of gas flow into the apparatus from the oxygen source (see [col 2 ln 65]).
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius for the solenoid valve taught by Tobia yields the predictable results of controlling the magnitude of gas flowing into the system from the gas source (see Nishimura [0072] and Tobia [col 2 ln 65]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Cardelius as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 4,681,099 A) (hereinafter Sato).
In regards to claim 7, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura further discloses characterized by comprising a valve (22-1; see [0120]; see figure 6) for opening/closing (see [0127]) located downstream of said second measuring device of the ozone concentration (75; see figures 28 and 22 that 75 is housed within one of the 75 and that 22-1 is downstream adjacent the ozone treatment apparatus).
Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius does not disclose the valve is a solenoid valve.
However, Sato teaches an analogous apparatus (concentrated oxygen supplier; see [col 4 ln 39]; see figure 2) which utilizes an analogous a down-stream valve (24; see [col 7 ln 34]; see figure 1); wherein the valve is a solenoid valve (see [col 7 ln 34]) for the purpose of facilitating the detection of any malfunction of the oxygen concentrator (see [col 7 ln 34-35]).
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 valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius and to have substituted the valve for the solenoid valve as taught by Sato in order to have provided an improved apparatus that would add the benefit of facilitating the detection of any malfunction of the oxygen concentrator (see [col 7 ln 34-35]).
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case to substitute the valve as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius for the solenoid valve as taught by Sato would yield the predictable results of providing a valve for allowing ozone/concentrated oxygen to reach or not reach a patient.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Cardelius as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehrhorn (US 2017/0042170 A1).
In regards to claim 8, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius does not disclose characterized in that said first measuring device of the ozone concentration comprises a cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet.
However, Ehrhorn teaches an analogous first measuring device of the ozone concentration (170; see [0052]; see figure 2) which is utilized for the analogous purpose of measuring an ozone concentration (see [0052]); characterized in that said first measuring device of the ozone concentration (170) comprises a cuvette (302; see [0061]; see figure 4) associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet (300; see [0062]; see figure 4).
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 first measuring device as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius and to have substituted it for the cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet as taught by Ehrhorn in order to have provided an improved first measuring device that would add the known benefits of cuvettes which include high precision and accuracy, uniform sample holders which make it easy to compare results, and a well-established reliability that has been supported by decades of use and optimization.
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the first measuring device of the ozone concentration as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius for the cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet for measuring ozone concentration as taught by Ehrhorn yields the predictable results of providing a means for measuring an ozone concentration.
In regards to claim 9, Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius does not disclose characterized in that said second measuring device of the ozone concentration comprises a cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet.
However, Ehrhorn teaches an analogous first measuring device of the ozone concentration (171; see [0052]; see figure 2) which is utilized for the analogous purpose of measuring an ozone concentration (see [0052]); characterized in that said second measuring device of the ozone concentration (171) comprises a cuvette (302; see [0061]; see figure 4) associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet (300; see [0062]; see figure 4).
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 second measuring device as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius and to have substituted it for the cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet as taught by Ehrhorn in order to have provided an improved second measuring device that would add the known benefits of cuvettes which include high precision and accuracy, uniform sample holders which make it easy to compare results, and a well-established reliability that has been supported by decades of use and optimization.
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the second measuring device of the ozone concentration as disclosed by Nishimura as now modified by Cardelius for the cuvette associated with an LED that emits in the ultraviolet for measuring ozone concentration as taught by Ehrhorn yields the predictable results of providing a means for measuring an ozone concentration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights