DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of an amendment to the claims on 12/12/2025. As per the amendments, claims 1, 8-9, 13, 16, and 18 have been amended, claims 2-3 and 7 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 4-6, and 8-20 are pending in the application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 includes limitations cited in above claim 13, without adding any new limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerra (US Pub. 2013/0284181) in view of Thompson et al. (US Pat. 10,426,941) in view of Landow et al. (US Pub. 2014/0102458) in view of Weaver et al. (US Pat. 9,993,607).
Regarding claim 1, Guerra discloses a respiration device (see the device of Fig. 26), comprising: a respiratory catheter (endotracheal tube 2605 in Fig. 26) having a plurality of integrated lumens in the respiratory catheter and adapted for insertion at a distal end (see Figs. 26-27 and 30 where the endotracheal tube 2605 has a primary passage 2609 and secondary passage 2613 for being inserted into the patient), the integrated lumens including: an anesthetic lumen adapted for transport of a fluid anesthetic (see Fig. 30 where secondary passage 2613 is used for delivering anesthesia; see also [0067] and [0073] where the anesthesia flows through the secondary passage 2613 and into the secondary passage 2613); an oxygen lumen adapted for transport of a gaseous substance (see Figs. 26 and 30, primary passage 2609 which fluidically communicates gas to the trachea; see also [0064]-[0065] as well as [0070] where there is an oxygen lumen along with the anesthesia lumen); the anesthetic lumen having an anesthetic passage at a distal portion of the distal end (see Figs. 26-28 and 30 the port 2807 of the secondary passage 2613 that is just proximal to the distal end), the anesthetic passage defined by a sequence of fenestrations (see Fig. 30 the plurality of ports 2807 for secondary passage 2613); and the oxygen lumen having an oxygen passage on the distal portion more distal towards the distal end than the anesthetic passage (see Figs. 26-28 and 30 where the distal end of endotracheal tube 2605 has a port end for primary passage 2609 that is at the very distal end, more distal than proximal ports 2807 (the one located just proximal the distal end) of secondary passage 2613) and the oxygen passage defined by a fenestration (see Figs. 26 and 30 the distal end port of primary passage 2609).
Guerra lacks a detailed description of the respiration device being a veterinary respiration device, adapted for nasal insertion.
However, Thompson teaches a respiratory device, which is adapted for veterinary use, and for nasal insertion (see Col. 13 lines 54-56 where the device can be sized and shaped for use in animals; and see Fig. 3 and abstract where the device is nasally inserted for the delivery of gases).
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 usage of the Guerra device to be adapted for veterinary and nasal use as taught by Thompson, as it would improve the usability of the device by allowing use in non-human patients for broader medical usage, as well as nasal insertion to allow the device to not obstruct the oral passage for other instrumentation.
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of wherein the respiratory catheter has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory catheter, the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the respiratory catheter to a patient, the multi-point attachment having a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter, the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure.
However, Landow teaches a respiratory tube for animal use (see Figs. 5A-7), where the respiratory tube has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory device (see Figs. 5A-7 and [0025] where a tube securement device 102 is used to secure an endotracheal tube within the patient’s mouth, using a sliding connector 108 as a multi point attachment that connects to an intermediate point of the endotracheal tube, the tube securement device and connector being able to attach to multiple different attachment points such as above and below the mouth as seen in Figs. 6A-6B), the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the respiratory device to a patient (see Figs. 5A-5B and [0025]-[0026] where the locations where sliding connector 108 is currently located coincide with a doubling-up of loop 116, the current location of sliding connector 108 on the loop 116 being a binding location that is secured by the connector, such that movement of the connector 108 results in changing of the binding location along loop 116), the multi-point attachment has a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter (sliding connector 108 in Figs. 5A-5B), the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure (see [0018] and [0025]-[0026] where the sliding connector is slid to maintain a firm connection between the tube securement device and the animal, and thus able to be adjusted based on the shape and size of the animal).
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 respiratory device of the modified Guerra device to attach to the tubing strap system as taught by Landow, as it would allow for the device to be held securely in place on the head of different sized and shaped animal (Landow; see [0018]-[0019]).
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of the oxygen passage is defined by a sequence of fenestrations.
However, Weaver teaches a multi-lumen respiratory cannula, where a first lumen contains a plurality of fenestrations for fluid flow (see Fig. 3A lumen 80 leading into plenum 74 and to apertures 37/38), which extends out from the distal end of the catheter as a bulb extending from a bulkhead (see Figs. 3A and 4A-4B where the distal end having apertures 37/37 extends as a bulb out from the bulkhead portion 72).
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 lumens of the modified Guerra device such that primary lumen includes a plurality of distal apertures carrier by a bulb extending from a bulkhead as taught by Weaver, as it would provide a series of apertures for the lumen such that fluid can flow through some of the apertures even if others are blocked. Additionally, the inclusion of a bulb and bulkhead help prevent unwanted fluid communication by sealing the separate lumens from one another (Weaver; Col. 4 lines 27-36). It is understood that in the modified Guerra device, the primary oxygen passage has been modified in light of weaver to extend beyond a bulkhead and be shaped as a bulb with a plurality of apertures.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Guerra device has wherein the catheter has an inversion for directing the integrated respiratory catheter for nasal insertion (Thompson; see Figs. 1A-3 where nasal tube 102 has an inverted bend that follows the shape of the nasal passage for directed the nasal tube through the nasal passage and to the back of the throat).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Guerra device has wherein the oxygen lumen has a greater cross section area than the anesthetic lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 30 where primary passage 2609 has a greater cross-section than secondary passage 2613), the anesthetic lumen occupying an interior portion of a circular cross section of the oxygen lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 30 where secondary passage 2613 sits within the circular cross-section of the primary passage 2609 that makes up the bulk of endotracheal tube 2605).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Guerra device has wherein the oxygen lumen has a greater cross section area than the anesthetic lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 30 where primary passage 2609 has a greater cross-section than secondary passage 2613), the anesthetic lumen engaged at a tangent to a circular cross section of the oxygen lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 29 where secondary passage 2613 sits touching the inner circumferential wall of endotracheal tube 2605 and primary passage 2609, which is tangent to primary passage 2609).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Guerra device has wherein the sequence of fenestrations in the anesthetic lumen precedes the sequence of fenestrations in the oxygen lumen (Guerra; see Fig. 30 where ports 2807 are proximal to the distal end of the endotracheal tube, the distal end as modified in light of Weaver such that the primary passage has a bulb with apertures 37 as seen in Figs. 3A and 4A-4B such that the ports 2807 are proximal to the bulb).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Guerra device has wherein the anesthetic lumen terminates prior to the sequence of fenestrations in the oxygen passage (Guerra; see Fig. 30 where ports 2807 are proximal to the distal end of the endotracheal tube, the distal end as modified in light of Weaver such that the primary passage has a bulb with apertures 37 as seen in Figs. 3A and 4A-4B such that the ports 2807 are proximal to the bulb. Hence the bulb extension of the primary passage 2609 of Guerra extends beyond the distal end of endotracheal tube 2605, and the secondary passage 2613 terminates prior to the bulb).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Guerra device has a receptacle adapted for receiving a connector at a proximate end of the oxygen lumen (Guerra; see connector 2603 in Fig. 30, and see also [0065]); and a needleless adapter for receiving an anesthetic fluid at a proximate end of the anesthetic lumen (Guerra; see Fig. 26 where attachment device 2615 of conduit 2611 which connects to secondary passage 2613 can be a luer lock to connect to a syringe; see also [0066]) .
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of a receptacle adapted for receiving a barbed fitting at a proximate end of the oxygen lumen.
However, Thompson further teaches a similar respiratory tube device, where the proximate end of a lumen is a connector adapted for receiving a barbed fitting (see Figs. 12A-13 and Col. 20 line 58 to Col. 21 line 5 where a proximal connector for tubes 1202 and 1212 can be a barbed connector from external tubes 1206 and 1216).
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 connector between the oxygen lumen and its source of the modified Guerra device to be adapted for receiving a barbed fitting as further taught by Thompson, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of friction fit connection between two tubes for another friction fit connection, to ensure a sealed and leak-proof connection between two tubes.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Guerra device has the respiratory catheter.
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of a tethered engagement to the respiratory catheter, the tethered engagement secured to a circumferential strap for patient cranial placement.
However, Landow teaches a respiratory device for an animal, where the respiratory device includes a tethered engagement secured to a circumferential strap for patient cranial placement (see Figs. 5A-7 where the tube securement device 102 has a loop 116 that tethers around the endotracheal tube (see [0025]-[0026]) and the loop 116 secures around the head of the animal).
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 respiratory device of the modified Guerra device to attach to the tubing strap system as taught by Landow, as it would allow for the device to be held securely in place on the head of different sized and shaped animal (Landow; see [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Guerra device has wherein the respiratory catheter is formed from a flexible outer wall (Guerra; see [0070] where the endotracheal tube can be made of flexible PVC or silicone), the flexible outer wall permitting articulation to form the inversion while avoiding an interrupting crease that impeded fluid flow (Thompson; see Figs. 1A-3 where nasal tube 102 has an inverted bend that follows the shape of the nasal passage for directed the nasal tube through the nasal passage and to the back of the throat, the nasal tube being made of PVC or silicone as disclosed in Guerra such that it is flexible, such that no creases are formed in the wall of the shown catheters).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerra in view of Thompson in view of Landow in view of Weaver.
Regarding claim 13, Guerra discloses a method for providing respiration (see the device of Figs. 26 and 30), comprising: disposing a respiratory catheter (endotracheal tube 2605 in Fig. 26) having a plurality of integrated lumens adapted for insertion at a distal end (see Figs. 26-27 and 30 where the endotracheal tube 2605 has a primary passage 2609 and secondary passage 2613 for being inserted into the patient), the integrated lumens including: an anesthetic lumen adapted for transport of a liquid anesthetic (see Fig. 30 where secondary passage 2613 is used for delivering anesthesia; see also [0067] and [0073] where the anesthesia flows through the second conduit 2611 into secondary passage 2613; where the anesthesia is able to be liquid as seen in [0042] and [0064]); an oxygen lumen adapted for transport of a gaseous substance (see Figs. 26 and 30, primary passage 2609 which fluidically communicates gas to the trachea; see also [0064]-[0065] as well as [0070] where there is an oxygen lumen along with the anesthesia lumen); the anesthetic lumen having an anesthetic passage at a distal portion of the distal end (see Figs. 26-28 and 30 the port 2807 of the secondary passage 2613 that is just proximal to the distal end), the anesthetic passage defined by a sequence of fenestrations (see Fig. 30 the plurality of ports 2807 for secondary passage 2613), and the oxygen lumen having an oxygen passage on the distal portion more distal towards the distal end than the anesthetic passage (see Figs. 26-28 and 30 where the distal end of endotracheal tube 2605 has a port end for primary passage 2609 that is at the very distal end, more distal than proximal ports 2807 (the one located just proximal the distal end) of secondary passage 2613) the oxygen passage defined by a fenestration (see Figs. 26 and 30 the distal end port of primary passage 2609); supplying an oxygenated respiration source via the oxygen lumen (see [0070] where a primary passage supplies oxygen); and supplying an anesthetic liquid via the anesthetic lumen (see [0070] where a secondary passage supplies anesthesia).
Guerra lacks a detailed description of being for veterinary respiration, with the integrated lumens adapted for nasal insertion at a distal end.
However, Thompson teaches a respiratory device, which is adapted for veterinary use, and for nasal insertion (see Col. 13 lines 54-56 where the device can be sized and shaped for use in animals; and see Fig. 3 and abstract where the device is nasally inserted for the delivery of gases).
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 usage of the Guerra device to be adapted for veterinary and nasal use as taught by Thompson, as it would improve the usability of the device by allowing use in non-human patients for broader medical usage, as well as nasal insertion to allow the device to not obstruct the oral passage for other instrumentation.
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of wherein the respiratory catheter has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory catheter, the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the respiratory catheter to a patient, the multi-point attachment having a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter, the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure.
However, Landow teaches a respiratory tube for animal use (see Figs. 5A-7), where the respiratory tube has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory device (see Figs. 5A-7 and [0025] where a tube securement device 102 is used to secure an endotracheal tube within the patient’s mouth, using a sliding connector 108 as a multi point attachment that connects to an intermediate point of the endotracheal tube, the tube securement device and connector being able to attach to multiple different attachment points such as above and below the mouth as seen in Figs. 6A-6B), the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the respiratory device to a patient (see Figs. 5A-5B and [0025]-[0026] where the locations where sliding connector 108 is currently located coincide with a doubling-up of loop 116, the current location of sliding connector 108 on the loop 116 being a binding location that is secured by the connector, such that movement of the connector 108 results in changing of the binding location along loop 116), the multi-point attachment has a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter (sliding connector 108 in Figs. 5A-5B), the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure (see [0018] and [0025]-[0026] where the sliding connector is slid to maintain a firm connection between the tube securement device and the animal, and thus able to be adjusted based on the shape and size of the animal).
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 respiratory device of the modified Guerra device to attach to the tubing strap system as taught by Landow, as it would allow for the device to be held securely in place on the head of different sized and shaped animal (Landow; see [0018]-[0019]).
The modified Guerra device lacks a detailed description of the oxygen passage is defined by a sequence of fenestrations.
However, Weaver teaches a multi-lumen respiratory cannula, where a first lumen contains a plurality of fenestrations for fluid flow (see Fig. 3A lumen 80 leading into plenum 74 and to apertures 37/38), which extends out from the distal end of the catheter as a bulb extending from a bulkhead (see Figs. 3A and 4A-4B where the distal end having apertures 37/37 extends as a bulb out from the bulkhead portion 72).
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 lumens of the modified Guerra device such that primary lumen includes a plurality of distal apertures carrier by a bulb extending from a bulkhead as taught by Weaver, as it would provide a series of apertures for the lumen such that fluid can flow through some of the apertures even if others are blocked. Additionally, the inclusion of a bulb and bulkhead help prevent unwanted fluid communication by sealing the separate lumens from one another (Weaver; Col. 4 lines 27-36). It is understood that in the modified Guerra device, the primary oxygen passage has been modified in light of weaver to extend beyond a bulkhead and be shaped as a bulb with a plurality of apertures.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Guerra device has where the respiratory tube has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory device (Landow; see Figs. 5A-7 and [0025] where a tube securement device 102 is used to secure an endotracheal tube within the patient’s mouth, using a sliding connector 108 as a multi point attachment that connects to an intermediate point of the endotracheal tube, the tube securement device and connector being able to attach to multiple different attachment points such as above and below the mouth as seen in Figs. 6A-6B), the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the integrated respiratory device to a patient (Landow; see Figs. 5A-5B and [0025]-[0026] where the locations where sliding connector 108 is currently located coincide with a doubling-up of loop 116, the current location of sliding connector 108 on the loop 116 being a binding location that is secured by the connector, such that movement of the connector 108 results in changing of the binding location along loop 116).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Guerra device has wherein the oxygen lumen has a greater cross section area than the anesthetic lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 30 where primary passage 2609 has a greater cross-section than secondary passage 2613), the anesthetic lumen engaged at a tangent to a circular cross section of the oxygen lumen (Guerra; see Figs. 26 and 29 where secondary passage 2613 sits touching the inner circumferential wall of endotracheal tube 2605 and primary passage 2609, which is tangent to primary passage 2609).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Thompson in view of Weaver in view of Landow.
Regarding claim 16, Harrison discloses a respiration device (mask 12 in Fig. 2), comprising: a harness including interconnecting straps for engaging a canine head (see Figs. 1-2 where head strap 32 and underchin strap 13 form a harness that engage a head of an animal, including a canine); a plurality of tubular vessels defining a respiratory catheter (see Figs. 1-2 tubes 20 and 20’), the tubular vessels conjoined in a parallel bundle and attached to a strap on the harness (see Figs. 1-2 where tubes 20 and 20’ comes together via first tube ring 37 to become conjoined (see Fig. 13C) and are held by and thus attached to the strap 32 and 13), each tubular vessel of the plurality of tubular vessels having a distal end and a proximate end (see Figs. 1-2 a distal end at the nose of the patient and a proximate end connected to first tube ring 37); a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory catheter (see Figs. 9A-9B where a head strap 62 can have guide pockets 78 that secure around the left/right inlet tubes), the multi point attachment having a plurality of binding locations for tethered securement of the respiratory catheter to a patient (see Figs. 9A-9B where there are two guide pockets, one on the left and one on the right of the head, each side being a binding location that tethers the inlet tube 58 to the patient), an attachment wing attached to the tubular bundle adjacent the proximate end (see Figs. 1-2 belts 18 which holds tube 21 onto the animal, and is adjacent to the proximate end of tubes 20 and 20’ at connector 37); the proximate end having an inverted bend for placement near a canine nasal passage (see Figs. 1-2 where tubes 20 and 20’ have a bend that inverts inward around the sides of the head of the animal, in order to reach around to access the nose, the bend beginning at connector 37); and a fluidic engagement port at the proximal end of each of the tubular vessels for receiving the fluid (see Figs. 1-2 where each tube 20 and 20’ has a proximal end at connector 37, forming a port within the tubes for receiving the fluid).
Harrison lacks a detailed description of the respiration device being inserted into a canine nasal passage.
However, Thompson teaches a respiratory device, which is adapted for veterinary use, and for nasal insertion (see Col. 13 lines 54-56 where the device can be sized and shaped for use in animals; and see Fig. 3 and abstract where the device is nasally inserted for the delivery of gases).
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 patient interface of the Harrison device to be adapted for veterinary and nasal use as taught by Thompson, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of nasal patient interface for another, to yield the predictable result of still providing the fluid to the animal’s nose.
The modified Harrison device lacks a detailed description of a plurality of fenestrations at a distal portion of the distal end of each of the plurality of vessels for fluid delivery into the canine nasal passage.
However, Weaver teaches a multi-lumen respiratory cannula, where a first lumen contains a plurality of fenestrations for delivering a first fluid (see Fig. 3A lumen 70 having a plurality of apertures 36), and a second lumen contains a plurality of fenestrations for flow of a second fluid (see Fig. 3A lumen 80 having a plurality of apertures 37/ 38), the fenestrations all being distally located on the cannula (see Fig. 3A where lumen 70 and its apertures 36 and lumen 80 and its apertures 37/38 are all distally located).
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 tubes of the modified Harrison device such that the tubes are multi-lumen with a plurality of distally located apertures as taught by Weaver, as it would provide a series of apertures for fluid passage to ensure that fluid can flow through some of the apertures even if others are blocked.
The modified Harrison device lacks a detailed description of wherein the respiratory catheter has the multi-point attachment having a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter, the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure.
However, Landow teaches a respiratory tube for animal use (see Figs. 5A-7), where the respiratory tube has a multi point attachment at an intermediate portion of the respiratory device (see Figs. 5A-7 and [0025] where a tube securement device 102 is used to secure an endotracheal tube within the patient’s mouth, using a sliding connector 108 as a multi point attachment that connects to an intermediate point of the endotracheal tube, the tube securement device and connector being able to attach to multiple different attachment points such as above and below the mouth as seen in Figs. 6A-6B), the multi-point attachment has a slidable engagement with the respiratory catheter (sliding connector 108 in Figs. 5A-5B), the slidable engagement adapted for securement to a patient at a predetermined location on the respiratory catheter based on a patient skeletal structure (see [0018] and [0025]-[0026] where the sliding connector is slid to maintain a firm connection between the tube securement device and the animal, and thus able to be adjusted based on the shape and size of the animal).
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 respiratory device of the modified Harrison device to attach to the tubing to the user as taught by Landow, as it would be a simple substitution of one securement means for holding the tube against a patient for another to yield the predictable result of securing the tube against the patient, with the benefit of allowing for the device to be held securely in place on the head of different sized and shaped animal (Landow; see [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Harrison device has wherein the fenestrations are based on a type of fluid delivered via the tubular vessels (Weaver; see Fig. 3A where apertures 36 are adapted for oxygen).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Harrison device has wherein the attachment wing has a planar surface adapted for securement to an epidermal surface of the patient (Harrison; see Figs. 1-2 belts 18 which have an inner surface which is adapted to engage with the skin/ fur of the animal as it wraps around them).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Harrison device has wherein the tubular vessels in include an oxygen vessel having a plurality of fenestrations for oxygen delivery (Weaver; see Fig. 3A lumen 70 with apertures 36).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Thompson in view of Weaver in view of Landow as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Guerra.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Harrison device has wherein the tubular vessel includes a vessel having at least one fenestration adapted for a fluid (Weaver; see Fig. 3A lumen 80 with apertures 37/38).
The modified Harrison device lacks a detailed description of wherein the tubular vessel is an anesthetic vessel adapted for delivery of a viscous anesthetic.
However, Guerra teaches a multi-lumen respiratory device, where one of the tubular vessels has fenestrations for delivering an anesthetic which can be viscous (see Fig. 30 where secondary passage 2613 is used for delivering anesthesia; see also [0067] and [0073] where the anesthesia flows through the secondary passage 2613; where the anesthesia is able to be liquid and thus have some viscosity as seen in [0042] and [0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a lumen of the modified Harrison device (Weaver; Fig. 3A lumen 80) to be an anesthesia lumen as taught by Guerra, as it would allow for the system for be used for anesthesia of patients, enhancing the usability and flexibility of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that the applied Thompson teaching reference dos not recite a veterinary use of the device. The argument is not well-taken. Thompson clearly discloses that the size of the device will vary depending on the size and type of patient, including animals (Col. 13 lines 54-56). Thompson teaches that respiratory devices can be adjusted in size and shape in order to fit different patients, such as animals. Using a respiratory device on an animal is understood to be veterinary use. Furthermore, adjusting the size of respiratory devices for different patients is well-known and obvious in the art (such as making tubes smaller for neonatal use), and as such the teachings of Thompson are sufficient to guide a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the size and shape of a respiratory device such as described in Guerra for animal usage.
Applicant argues from pages 7-8 that the prior art does constricts the airflow (Landow) and/or constricts the patient so as to cause discomfort (Harrison. Without acquiescing to these assertions, the Examiner notes that the claims do not provide structure and/or function to clearly state these alleged advantages. Furthermore, the Landow device is understood to delivery air to a patient and is adjustable, such that any constriction would reasonably be low enough to not have significant interference with airflow. Likewise, Harrison is designed to be worn by and adjusted on an animal, such that the worn harness system is at least not overly discomfortable to the animal wearing it.
For these reasons, the rejections hold.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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 D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785