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 .
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
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:
"functional component” in Claim 1 and 13
“uncoupling element” in Claim 1 and 13
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.
The corresponding structure in the specification being:
functional component – part of the housing/part of the housing of the electric motor
uncoupling element - an elastic, at least partially flexible connection.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12296093 B2
The Claims are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims substantially overlap in claimed subject matter as illustrated in the table below which lists the claims of the instant application and their corresponding claim(s) in the parent application with substantially overlapping subject matter. Examiner notes that the primary difference between the claim sets is that Claim 1 of US 12296093 B2 is of narrower scope which includes the additional limitation x: “the collection housing having a shape of a spiral”.
Instant Application 19/063591Claim(s)
US Patent 12296093 B2
Claim(s)
1
1+ x
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansmann (US 6,474,960 B1) hereinafter referred to as Hansmann.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Hansmann discloses a compressor (figure 3 also reproduced/annotated above) for delivering an air and/or gas stream (see figure 3), the compressor comprising:
a housing (14, figure 3), with a housing interior (see interior of 14, figure 3);
a rotatably mounted compressor impeller (2, figure 3) in the housing interior (see figure 3);
an electric motor (6, figure 3);
a drive shaft (see annotated figure 3), the impeller being connected to the electric motor via the drive shaft (see annotated figure 3), wherein the drive shaft is configured to rotate such that air and/or gas stream is delivered from an inlet (see annotated figure 3) arranged upstream on a suction side (see annotated figure 3) of the compressor impeller through a flow duct (see annotated figure 3) to an outlet (see annotated figure 3) arranged downstream on a delivery side (see annotated figure 3) of the compressor impeller;
a cover element (3, figure 3), wherein the compressor impeller is enclosed in at least some areas by the housing and the cover element (see figure 3), the housing being configured as a collection housing for the air and/or gas stream leaving the compressor impeller (see figure 3), the housing being arranged at least partially on the delivery side of the compressor impeller (see annotated figure 3), and the cover element (see annotated figure 3), being arranged at least partially on the suction side of the compressor impeller and the cover element being separated in at least some sections from the compressor impeller by a gap (see gap between 2 and 3, figure 3);
a functional component (housing of motor 6) connected at least indirectly to the compressor impeller and/or to the electric motor (see figure 3); and
an uncoupling element arrangement comprising at least one respective uncoupling element (membrane(s) 13, figure 3), the uncoupling element arrangement being arranged between the cover element and the collection housing (see figure 3) and between the functional component and the collection housing (see figure 3) for vibration damping and for at least partial sealing of the housing interior against a surrounding area (intended use recitation, see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Hansmann discloses that the functional component is a part of the housing or another housing and/or is a part of an encapsulation of the electric motor and/or is connected indirectly or directly to the electric motor (functional component i.e. motor housing as discussed in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hansmann discloses that the cover element is configured in the form of a disk (3 is annular, figure 3), which has a passage for the air and/or gas stream in an interior of the disk (see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Hansmann discloses a ventilator or anesthesia device (respirator, title) comprising a compressor (figure 3), the compressor comprising the compressor comprising:
a housing (14, figure 3), with a housing interior (see interior of 14, figure 3);
a rotatably mounted compressor impeller (2, figure 3) in the housing interior (see figure 3);
an electric motor (6, figure 3);
a drive shaft (see annotated figure 3), the impeller being connected to the electric motor via the drive shaft (see annotated figure 3), wherein the drive shaft is configured to rotate such that air and/or gas stream is delivered from an inlet (see annotated figure 3) arranged upstream on a suction side (see annotated figure 3) of the compressor impeller through a flow duct (see annotated figure 3) to an outlet (see annotated figure 3) arranged downstream on a delivery side (see annotated figure 3) of the compressor impeller;
a cover element (3, figure 3), wherein the compressor impeller is enclosed in at least some areas by the housing and the cover element (see figure 3), the housing being configured as a collection housing for the air and/or gas stream leaving the compressor impeller (see figure 3), the housing being arranged arranged at least partially on the delivery side of the compressor impeller (see annotated figure 3), and the cover element (see annotated figure 3), being arranged at least partially on the suction side of the compressor impeller and the cover element being separated in at least some sections from the compressor impeller by a gap (see gap between 2 and 3, figure 3);
a functional component (housing of motor 6) connected at least indirectly to the compressor impeller and/or to the electric motor (see figure 3); and
an uncoupling element arrangement comprising at least one respective uncoupling element (membranes 13, figure 3), the uncoupling element arrangement being arranged between the cover element and the collection housing (see figure 3) and between the functional component and the collection housing (see figure 3) for vibration damping and for at least partial sealing of the housing interior against a surrounding area (intended use recitation, see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Hansmann discloses that the functional component is a part of the housing or another housing and/or is a part of an encapsulation of the electric motor and/or is connected indirectly or directly to the electric motor (functional component i.e. motor housing as discussed in Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, Hansmann discloses that the cover element is configured in the form of a disk (3 is annular, figure 3), which has a passage for the air and/or gas stream in an interior of the disk (see figure 3).
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 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 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of Hill et al (US 2014/0325789 A1) hereinafter referred to as Hill.
Regarding Claim 4, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on a flow guide unit, wherein the cover element is connected in at least some areas indirectly or directly to the flow guide unit, which has at least one guide blade for guiding the air and/or gas stream released on the delivery side of the compressor impeller.
Hill relates to a compressor which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a flow guide unit (see annotated figure 2 below) which has at least one guide blade (25, figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of Hill, and include a flow guide unit which has at least one guide blade, and thereby have a flow guide unit, wherein the cover element is connected in at least some areas indirectly or directly to the flow guide unit, which has at least one guide blade for guiding the air and/or gas stream released on the delivery side of the compressor impeller. Doing so provides the benefit of guiding the air/gas into the outlet and increase efficiency of the compressor.
Regarding Claim 5, Hansmann as modified by Hill teaches the flow guide unit has a ring-shaped configuration (see Hill, annotated figure 2) and at least another guide blade to provide a plurality of guide blades arranged on a ring surface (see figure 2); and
the compressor impeller is arranged in an interior of the flow guide unit (see modification above in Claim 4), such that the air and/or gas stream released from the compressor impeller on the delivery side at least partially reaches the plurality of guide blades (see modification above in Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above but is silent on a flow guide unit, wherein the cover element is connected in at least some areas indirectly or directly to the flow guide unit, which has at least one guide blade for guiding the air and/or gas stream released on the delivery side of the compressor impeller.
Hill relates to a compressor which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a flow guide unit (see annotated figure 2 below) which has at least one guide blade (25, figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of Hill and include a flow guide unit which has at least one guide blade, and thereby have a flow guide unit, wherein the cover element is connected in at least some areas indirectly or directly to the flow guide unit, which has at least one guide blade for guiding the air and/or gas stream released on the delivery side of the compressor impeller. Doing so provides the benefit of guiding the air/gas into the outlet and increase efficiency of the compressor.
Regarding Claim 17, Hansmann as modified by Hill teaches the flow guide unit has a ring-shaped configuration (see Hill, annotated figure 2) and at least another guide blade to provide a plurality of guide blades arranged on a ring surface (see figure 2); and
the compressor impeller is arranged in an interior of the flow guide unit (see modification above in Claim 4), such that the air and/or gas stream released from the compressor impeller on the delivery side at least partially reaches the plurality of guide blades (see modification above in Claim 4).
Claim 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of Tomita et al (US 9638208 B2) hereinafter referred to as Tomita.
Regarding Claim 6, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on the compressor impeller comprising main blades extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles at least over an entire cross section of the flow duct and at least two respective intermediate blades arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades.
Tomita relates to a compressor which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches a compressor impeller comprising main blades (5, figure 1 also reproduced below) extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles (implicit from figure 1) and at least two respective intermediate blades (7, 8, figure 1) arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the compressor blade arrangement of Tomita and thereby have the compressor impeller comprising main blades extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles at least over an entire cross section of the flow duct and at least two respective intermediate blades arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades. Doing so provides the benefit of improving compressor efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7, Hansmann as modified by Tomita teaches the intermediate blades, arranged between two main blades have different lengths in the radial direction, have unequal profiles and/or have blade surface areas (see modification in Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above but is silent on the compressor impeller comprising main blades extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles at least over an entire cross section of the flow duct and at least two respective intermediate blades arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades.
Tomita relates to a compressor which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches a compressor impeller comprising main blades (5, figure 1) extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles (implicit from figure 1) and at least two respective intermediate blades (7, 8, figure 1) arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the compressor blade arrangement of Tomita and thereby have the compressor impeller comprising main blades extending in a radial direction from an outer circumference of the compressor impeller at right angles at least over an entire cross section of the flow duct and at least two respective intermediate blades arranged between the main blades and having a shorter configuration than the main blades. Doing so provides the benefit of improving compressor efficiency.
Claim 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of Stemp (US 3692142 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on at least one inlet muffler arranged upstream of the compressor impeller.
Stemp relates to a muffler for reducing intake noise of compressors and the like, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a muffler (figure 2 also reproduced above).
PNG
media_image4.png
172
176
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of Stemp and include a muffler, and thereby have at least one inlet muffler arranged upstream of the compressor impeller. Doing so provides the benefit of inlet noise reduction.
Regarding Claim 9, Hansmann as modified by Stemp teaches the inlet muffler being configured as a spiral muffler (see modification in Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above but is silent on at least one inlet muffler arranged upstream of the compressor impeller, wherein the inlet muffler is configured as a spiral muffler.
Stemp relates to a muffler for reducing intake noise of compressors and the like which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a muffler (figure 2 also reproduced above), wherein the inlet muffler is configured as a spiral muffler (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of Stemp and include a muffler, wherein the inlet muffler is configured as a spiral muffler, and thereby have at least one inlet muffler arranged upstream of the compressor impeller, wherein the inlet muffler is configured as a spiral muffler. Doing so provides the benefit of inlet noise reduction.
Claim 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of FU et al (US 2018/0064894 A1) hereinafter referred to as FU.
Regarding Claim 11, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on at least one valve element configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream, the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller.
FU relates to a portable ventilator which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches at least one valve element (510, figure 109 also reproduced below) configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller (560, figure 109) in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream (see figure 109), the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller (see figure 109).
PNG
media_image5.png
480
242
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of FU and have at least one valve element configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream, the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller. Doing so provides the benefit of controlled airflow into the compressor.
Regarding Claim 12, Hansmann as modified by FU teaches the valve element comprises a movably mounted valve membrane (see 507, figure 109).
Regarding Claim 20, Hansmann discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above but is silent on at least one valve element configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream, the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller.
FU relates to a portable ventilator which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches at least one valve element (510, figure 109) configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller (560, figure 109) in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream (see figure 109), the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller (see figure 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansmann by incorporating the teaching of FU and have at least one valve element configured to open based on a pressure difference caused by rotation of the compressor impeller in the flow direction of the air and/or the gas stream, the at least one valve element being arranged upstream of the compressor impeller. Doing so provides the benefit of controlled airflow into the compressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6745767 B2 discloses a respiration system with an electrically driven compressor (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571- 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745