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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 12/1/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 2, 5, 10-15, 18, and 31-32 were canceled, claims 1 and 30 were amended, and claims 33-36 were added. Thus, claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 16-17, 19-30 and 33-36 are pending for this application.
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 7, 20, 29 and 30 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.
Claims 7 and 20 recite the limitation "the back dorsal side" in line 2-3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 29 and 30 recite the limitation "the dorsal side of the device" in line 2 of claim 29 and line 6 of claim 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pagan (US 6,240,922).
Regarding claim 1, Pagan discloses (Fig. 5-6, and Fig. 2 (Fig. 2 embodiment only used for the references to reference numbers that are not labeled in Fig. 5-6)) an airway device for human or animal use comprising:
an airway tube (comprising mount member 15 and tube 1) having a dorsal side (see Annotated Fig. 6) and a ventral side (see Annotated Fig. 6), a first end (end of airway tube 1,15 that is positioned at dotted line as shown in Annotated Fig. 6) and a second end (end of tube 1 at opposite end), and a passage extending between the first and second ends of the airway tube (see opening formed within airway tube in Annotated Fig. 6); and
a laryngeal cuff (bag member 16) that surrounds the first end of the airway tube and is configured to fit over a laryngeal inlet of a patient when in situ (Abstract), wherein the first end of the airway tube has a ventral-facing internal wall of the dorsal side that extends continuously lengthwise from the laryngeal cuff through the airway tube passage and between opposing lateral sides of the laryngeal cuff (continuous wall as shown in Annotated Fig. 6 as well as Fig. 2), the ventral-facing internal wall comprising an intubating ramp (formed by ribs 51-53) having a first end proximate the first end of the airway tube (portion of intubating ramp proximate, meaning close to, the first end as shown in Annotated Fig. 6), a second end inside the passage (see Annotated Fig. 6), and a length extending between the first and second ends of the intubating ramp (see Annotated Fig. 6), the intubating ramp sloping away from the dorsal side in a direction from the second end toward the first end thereof (see Annotated Fig. 6), whereby said intubating ramp is configured to direct an endotracheal tube inserted through the airway tube into the laryngeal inlet of the patient when in situ (while not explicitly stated, because this limitation is intended use and the structure of Pagan would be capable of performing this function (i.e. evidenced by the deflector being capable of allowing a suction catheter to be inserted, see Col. 3 lines 5-9, this limitation is comprehended by Pagan), wherein the intubating ramp is provided with a plurality of airflow channels (see grooves between ribs 51-53 in Fig. 5) formed in the ventral-facing internal wall and running the length of the intubating ramp (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, Pagan discloses (Fig. 5-6, and Fig. 2 (Fig. 2 embodiment only used for the references to reference numbers that are not labeled in Fig. 5-6)) an airway device for human or animal use comprising:
an airway tube (comprising mount member 15 and tube 1) having a dorsal side (see Annotated Fig. 6) and a ventral side (see Annotated Fig. 6), a first end (end of airway tube 1,15 that is positioned at dotted line as shown in Annotated Fig. 6) and a second end (end of tube 1 at opposite end), and a passage extending between the first and second ends of the airway tube (see opening formed within airway tube in Annotated Fig. 6); and
a laryngeal cuff (bag member 16) that surrounds the first end of the airway tube and is configured to fit over a laryngeal inlet of a patient when in situ (Abstract), wherein the first end of the airway tube has a ventral-facing internal wall of the dorsal side that extends continuously lengthwise from the laryngeal cuff through the airway tube passage and between opposing lateral sides of the laryngeal cuff (see continuous wall as shown in Annotated Fig. 6 as well as Fig. 2), the ventral-facing internal wall comprising an intubating ramp (formed by ribs 51-53) having a first end proximate the first end of the airway tube (portion of intubating ramp proximate, meaning close to, the first end as shown in Annotated Fig. 6), a second end inside the passage (see Annotated Fig. 6), and a length extending between the first and second ends of the intubating ramp (see Annotated Fig. 6), the intubating ramp sloping away from the dorsal side in a direction from the second end toward the first end thereof (Annotated Fig. 6), wherein the intubating ramp is shaped and configured such that the airway tube passage is not narrowed near the first end of the airway tube (passage near first end of airway tube is not narrowed compared to section closer to ramp, see Annotated Fig. 6), and said intubating ramp directs an endotracheal tube inserted through the airway tube into the laryngeal inlet of the patient when in situ (while not explicitly stated, because this limitation is intended use and the structure of Pagan would be capable of performing this function (i.e. evidenced by the deflector being capable of allowing a suction catheter to be inserted, see Col. 3 lines 5-9, this limitation is comprehended by Pagan), wherein the intubating ramp is provided with a plurality of airflow channels (see grooves between ribs 51-53 in Fig. 5) formed in the ventral-facing internal wall and running the length of the intubating ramp (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 34, Pagan discloses wherein a distance between the ventral-facing internal wall and a dorsal-facing internal wall of the ventral side exists at the second end of the intubating ramp and said distance increases toward the first end of the intubating ramp (distance between walls increases due to the slope of the ramp decreasing from first end to second end of ramp 52, see Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 35, Pagan discloses (Fig. 5-6, and Fig. 2 (Fig. 2 embodiment only used for the references to reference numbers that are not labeled in Fig. 5-6)) an airway device for human or animal use (Abstract) comprising:
an airway tube (comprising mount member 15 and tube 1) having a dorsal side (see Annotated Fig. 6) and a ventral side (see Annotated Fig. 6), a first end (end of tube 1,15 positioned at dotted line shown in Annotated Fig. 6) and a second end (end of tube 1 at opposite end), and a passage extending between the first and second ends of the airway tube (see opening formed within airway tube in Annotated Fig. 6); and
a laryngeal cuff (bag member 16) that surrounds the first end of the airway tube and is configured to fit over a laryngeal inlet of a patient when in situ (Abstract), wherein the first end of the airway tube has a ventral-facing internal wall of the dorsal side that extends continuously lengthwise from the laryngeal cuff through the airway tube passage and between opposing lateral sides of the laryngeal cuff (see continuous wall as shown in Annotated Fig. 6 as well as Fig. 2), the ventral-facing internal wall comprising an intubating ramp (formed by ribs 51-53) having a first end proximate the first end of the airway tube (portion of intubating ramp proximate, meaning close to, the first end as shown in Annotated Fig. 6), a second end inside the passage (see Annotated Fig. 6), and a length extending between the first and second ends of the intubating ramp (see Annotated Fig. 6), the intubating ramp sloping away from the dorsal side in a direction from the second end toward the first end thereof (see Annotated Fig. 6), whereby a distance between the ventral-facing internal wall and a dorsal-facing internal wall of the ventral side exists at the second end of the intubating ramp and said distance increases toward the first end of the intubating ramp (passage near first end of airway tube is not narrowed compared to section closer to ramp, see Annotated Fig. 6), and whereby said intubating ramp is configured to direct an endotracheal tube inserted through the airway tube into the laryngeal inlet of the patient when in situ (while not explicitly stated, because this limitation is intended use and the structure of Pagan would be capable of performing this function (i.e. evidenced by the deflector being capable of allowing a suction catheter to be inserted, see Col. 3 lines 5-9, this limitation is comprehended by Pagan).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (US 6,705,322).
Regarding claim 36, Chang discloses (Fig. 1-2) an airway device for human or animal use comprising:
an airway tube (comprising tube 12 and conduit portion of bladder 24, see Annotated Fig. 2) having a dorsal side and a ventral side (see dorsal and ventral sides in Annotated Fig. 2), a first end and a second end (see first and second ends in Annotated Fig. 2 above), and a passage extending between the first and second ends of the airway tube (passage 12 extending between ends as shown in Fig 2); and
a laryngeal cuff (cuff 24) that surrounds the first end of the airway tube (see Fig. 2) and is configured to fit over a laryngeal inlet of a patient when in situ (Col. 3 lines 3-15), wherein the first end of the airway tube has a ventral-facing internal wall of the dorsal side that extends continuously lengthwise from the laryngeal cuff through the airway tube passage and between opposing lateral sides of the laryngeal cuff (see dorsal wall formed by tube 12 and conduit portion of bladder 14 that runs continuously from the cuff through the airway tube passage in Annotated Fig. 2), the ventral-facing internal wall comprising a single integral intubating ramp (Chang discloses “at least one” rib 26, Col. 2 line 53, and thus a single integral ramp is disclosed when one rib is used) having a first end proximate the first end of the airway tube (see first end Annotated Fig. 2), a second end inside the passage (see second end Annotated Fig. 2), and a length extending between the first and second ends of the intubating ramp (see length between first and second ends of ramp in Fig. 2), the intubating ramp sloping away from the dorsal side in a direction from the second end toward the first end thereof (see sloping away in direction from second to first end in Annotated Fig. 2), whereby said intubating ramp is configured to direct an endotracheal tube inserted through the airway tube into the laryngeal inlet of the patient when in situ (while not explicitly stated, because this limitation is intended use and the structure of Pagan would be capable of performing this function).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 16, 19, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,705,322) in view of Kumar (GB 2481538).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses (Fig. 1-2) an airway device for human or animal use comprising:
an airway tube (comprising tube 12 and conduit portion of bladder 24, see Annotated Fig. 2) having a dorsal side and a ventral side (see dorsal and ventral sides in Annotated Fig. 2), a first end and a second end (see first and second ends in Annotated Fig. 2 above), and a passage extending between the first and second ends of the airway tube (passage 12 extending between ends as shown in Fig 2); and
a laryngeal cuff (cuff 24) that surrounds the first end of the airway tube (see Fig. 2) and is configured to fit over a laryngeal inlet of a patient when in situ (Col. 3 lines 3-15), wherein the first end of the airway tube has a ventral-facing internal wall of the dorsal side that extends continuously lengthwise from the laryngeal cuff through the airway tube passage and between opposing lateral sides of the laryngeal cuff (see dorsal wall formed by tube 12 and conduit portion of bladder 14 that runs continuously from the cuff through the airway tube passage in Annotated Fig. 2), the ventral-facing internal wall comprising an intubating ramp (ramp 26) having a first end proximate the first end of the airway tube (see first end Annotated Fig. 2), a second end inside the passage (see second end Annotated Fig. 2), and a length extending between the first and second ends of the intubating ramp (see length between first and second ends of ramp in Fig. 2), the intubating ramp sloping away from the dorsal side in a direction from the second end toward the first end thereof (see sloping away in direction from second to first end in Annotated Fig. 2), whereby said intubating ramp is configured to direct an endotracheal tube inserted through the airway tube into the laryngeal inlet of the patient when in situ (while not explicitly stated, because this limitation is intended use and the structure of Pagan would be capable of performing this function).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang discloses the intubating ramp is provided with an airflow channel formed in, and beneath an upper surface of, the ventral-facing internal wall and running the length of the intubating ramp (see channel between ridges of ramp in Fig. 3. The channels are beneath an upper surface of the ventral facing internal wall when the device bladder 24 is facing upward as shown in Fig. 2), but does not disclose the intubating ramp is provided with a plurality of airflow channels.
However, Kumar teaches (Fig. 64-65) an intubating ramp (brackets 2413, 2415, 2417 angled to form a ramp) provided with a plurality of airflow channels (spaces between 2413, 2315, 2417 form channels) formed in a ventral facing surface and running the length of the intubating ramp (see Fig. 64-65). Regarding the limitation that the channels are “formed in the ventral-facing internal wall”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that because the primary reference Chang already discloses the intubating ramp is formed in the ventral facing internal wall, and that the teaching reference Kumar is used to modify the structure of the intubating ramp to have said channels, the combined Chang/Kumar reference would comprehend this claimed limitation.
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 intubating ramp of Chang to add the plurality of grooves as taught by Kumar in order provide a second, redundant airway patency to allow airflow to the patient even if the epiglottis folds down onto the intubating device to prevent asphyxiation (Kumar page 36 lines 4-5 and lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chang discloses wherein the first end of the airway tube is of greater diameter than a remainder of the airway tube (see diameter of first end of airway tube in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 6 and 19, modified Chang discloses the laryngeal cuff has a tip (tip of cuff 24 of Chang shown in Fig. 1 that has tongue 242 of airway tube housed within), and wherein the tip of the laryngeal cuff is elongate (see elongate shape in Fig. 1 Chag).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Chang discloses an airway tube, but does not disclose where a side wall of the second end of the airway tube is provided with a supplementary gas inlet.
However, Kumar teaches an airway device (2410, Fig. 64) including where a side wall of the second end of the airway tube is provided with a supplementary gas inlet (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
367
763
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 48 of Kumar
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 intubating device of modified Chang to add the supplementary gas inlet as taught by Kumar in order to facilitate delivery of anesthesia or other medicament to the patient’s respiratory system while the patient is intubated.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, modified Chang discloses the first end of the airway tube is of widened diameter (see widened diameter of first end in Annotated Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 26, the modified Chang discloses the airway device includes a cuff, but does not disclose wherein the device further incorporates a gastric tube passageway extending from the tip of the cuff to the second end of the airway device.
However, Kumar teaches an airway device (2410, Fig. 64) including wherein the device further incorporates a gastric tube passageway (gastric channel 580, Fig. 12) extending from the tip of the cuff to the second end of the airway device (gastric channel 580 extends from one end of the device at cuff 518 to another end at connector portion 524, Fig. 12).
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 mask airway of modified Chang to include a gastric channel as taught by Kumar in order to provide gastric access to a medical professional while simultaneously accessing the patient airways.
Regarding claim 29, modified Change discloses the intubating ramp continuously slopes away from the dorsal side of the device between the second and the first ends thereof (see Annotated Fig. 2 Chang).
Regarding claim 30, modified Chang discloses the ventral-facing internal wall comprises: a first portion (see first portion in Annotated Fig. 2 below) adjacent the cuff that includes the first end of the intubating ramp (see Annotated Fig. 2), and a second portion (see second portion in Annotated Fig. 2 below) that includes the second end of the intubating ramps (see Annotated Fig. 2) wherein the first and second portions of the ventral-facing internal wall have different slopes (see different slopes in Fig. 2) that both slope away from the dorsal side of the device (first portion slopes away in direction from cuff to first end, second portion slopes away from second end to first end).
PNG
media_image4.png
462
740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Kumar, and further in view of Heimlich (US Pat. 4,987,895).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Chang discloses wherein the airway tube has a dorsal side, a ventral side), and an internal wall (see Annotated Fig. 2 of Chang above), but does not disclose wherein the internal wall of the ventral side of the airway tube is flattened.
However, Heimlich teaches a tracheostomy tube (40, Fig. 6) including wherein the internal wall of the ventral side of the airway tube is flattened (tracheostomy tube 40 is generally C-shaped with a flat backwall 43 on one side, Col. 8 lines 3-26, Fig. 7, the flat backwall 43 forming a flat surface wall on the interior of the device, see also annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
258
356
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Heimlich
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 airway tube of Chang to incorporate a flattened ventral section as taught by Heimlich in order to facilitate the airway device sitting more comfortably and naturally in the patient’s airway (Heimlich Col. 8 lines 20-26).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 4 above. For the sake of brevity, the rejection will not be repeated here.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Kumar, and further in view of Nasir (WO 2011161473, hereinafter Nasir ‘473).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, modified Chang discloses wherein the laryngeal cuff has a tip (tip of cuff 24 of Chang shown in Fig. 1 that has tongue 242 of airway tube housed within), but does not disclose wherein the tip of the laryngeal cuff is provided with a protrusion on the back dorsal side thereof.
However, Nasir ‘473 teaches (Figs. 70-72) a laryngeal cuff (cuff 3018) having a tip (tip portion 3032), where the tip of the laryngeal cuff is provided with a protrusion (sealing portion 3090) on the back dorsal side thereof (see portion of protrusion 3090 on dorsal side 3020 of cuff 3018 in Fig. 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cuff of modified Chang to include of a tip of the laryngeal cuff is provided with a protrusion on the back dorsal side thereon, as taught by Nasir ‘473, for the purpose of providing improved sealing (page 38 paragraph 4 Nasir ‘473).
Claims 21-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Kumar, and further in view of Nasir (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0277772, hereinafter Nasir ‘772).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Chang discloses an airway tube, but does not disclose wherein the airway device further comprises a buccal cavity stabiliser located on or around the airway tube between the laryngeal cuff and the second end of the tube.
However, Nasir ‘772 teaches an airway device (10, Fig. 1) including wherein the airway device further comprises a buccal cavity stabiliser (buccal cavity stabilizer 22, Fig. 1) located on or around the airway tube between the laryngeal cuff and the second end of the tube (buccal cavity stabilizer 22 is integral with the airway tube 11 and laryngeal cuff 14 as a single unit, Para. 82, the stabilizer 22 being disposed between the laryngeal cuff 14 at distal end 13 of the airway tube 11 and the proximal end 12 of the airway tube 11, Fig. 1).
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 airway tube of modified Chang to include a buccal cavity stabilizer as taught by Nasir ‘772 in order to engage with anatomy of the tongue of the patient to reduce forwards or backwards movement of the device during use (Nasir Paras. 137-138).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Chang discloses wherein the buccal cavity stabiliser is formed as an integral part of the airway tube (Nasir ‘772 stabilizer 22 is formed integrally with Nasir ‘772 airway tube 11, Nasir ‘772 Para. 82, Nasir ‘772 Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Chang discloses wherein the buccal cavity stabiliser, the airway tube and the laryngeal cuff are all formed as an integral unit (Nasir ‘772 stabilizer 22, Nasir ‘772 airway tube 11, and Nasir ‘772 laryngeal cuff 14 are formed as an integral unit, Nasir ‘772 Para. 82).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Chang discloses a laryngeal cuff, but does not disclose wherein the laryngeal cuff is formed from a material with a Shore hardness on the A scale of 40 or less.
However, Nasir ‘772 teaches an airway device (10, Fig. 1) including wherein the laryngeal cuff (laryngeal cuff 14, Fig. 1) is formed from a material with a Shore hardness on the A scale of 40 or less (cuff 14 is formed of material with a Shore A hardness of 40 or less, and preferably about 30 Shore A hardness, Para. 34).
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 material of the cuff of modified Chang to be of a Shore A hardness less than 40 as taught by Nasir ‘772 in order to provide a perceived softness to the patient while maintaining sufficient structural integrity (Nasir ‘772 Para. 35).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Chang discloses all the claimed limitations, as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Chang, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the back or dorsal part of the device is formed from a material of Shore hardness less than 60 on the A scale.
However, Nasir ‘772 teaches an airway device (10, Fig. 1) including wherein the back or dorsal part of the device is formed from a material of Shore hardness less than 60 on the A scale (the dorsal part of airway tube 11 is formed of a material having a Shore A hardness of 60 or less, Para. 119).
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 material of the dorsal side of the airway tube of modified Chang to be of a Shore A hardness less than 60 as taught by Nasir ‘772 in order to provide a harder material in regions not contacting sensitive portions of the patient’s airways (Nasir ‘772 Para. 116).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Chang discloses all the claimed limitations, as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Chang, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the laryngeal cuff is a non-inflatable laryngeal cuff.
However, Nasir ‘772 teaches an airway device (10, Fig. 1) including wherein the laryngeal cuff is a non-inflatable laryngeal cuff (laryngeal cuff 14 may be non-inflatable, Para. 122).
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 cuff of modified Chang to be non-inflatable as taught by Nasir ‘772 in order to improve safety and reliability of the airway device by causing less trauma to airway tissue while maintaining sufficient seal pressures (Nasir ‘772 Para. 4).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites essentially the same limitations as those found in claim 23. For the sake of brevity, the rejection will not be repeated here as the previously applied art reads mutatis mutandis on claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), applicant argued (page 9 paragraph 5 Remarks) because the ribs of Pagan project down from the surface of the roof, the ribs are above the surface of the roof, and therefore the channels are not formed beneath the surface of the roof.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim states that the airflow channels are formed in and beneath an upper surface of the internal wall, and one of ordinary skill would recognize that orienting the device so that the airway opening opens upwardly would result in the claimed invention. See Annotated Fig. 6 of Pagan below. Applicant has not provided a reference location that would make the relationship applicant claims as narrow as they suggest in the arguments.
PNG
media_image6.png
281
372
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Cook in view of Kumar, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Cook reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding new claims 33 and 34-35, applicant argued (page 10 paragraph 6 Remarks) that Pagan fails to teach the airway tube passage is not narrowed near the first end of the airway tube, as Pagan explicitly teaches that the ribs cause a narrowing of the airway tube passage at the apex of the ribs.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, applicant claims that the passage is “not narrowed near the first end of the airway tube”, not that the passage is narrowed at the apex of the ramp, as applicant appears to be arguing. As shown in Fig. 6 of Pagan, Pagan discloses that the airway passage increases in diameter (and thus not narrowed) from the first of the ramp to the first end of the airway, and thus comprehends the newly added limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785