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 the amendment filed 1/12/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 11 have been amended, and claims 14 and 15 have been added. As such, claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant addressed the first and third of the previous claim objections; however, the second of the previous claim objections persists (now in claims 4 and 11). The objections to the claims are updated below, where any previous objection not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address the first of the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b), but the second of the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) persists (now in claims 2 and 9). The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) are updated below, where any previous rejection not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/12/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15 should read “is increased, when” to make it clearer that the gas pressure difference and flow speed are both functional limitations that are provided for by gas flowing through the flame arrester in use separable
Claim 4, line 2 should read “separable”
Claim 4, line 4 should read “to form”
Claim 8, line 17 should read “is increased, when” to make it clearer that the gas pressure difference and flow speed are both functional limitations that are provided for by gas flowing through the flame arrester in use
Claim 11, line 3 should read “separable”
Claim 11, line 5 should read “to form”
Claim 15, line 2 should read “to form”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 14 (and thus its dependent claim 15), the specification as originally filed only describes one end/body of the catchment canister 122 being integral with the first connecting tube 124 or output tube 126 while the other end/body is detachably coupled to the other of the first connecting tube 124 or output tube 126, see page 12, lines 20-29 of the instant specification, which does not support both ends/bodies being integral with their respective tubing in the same embodiment as instantly claimed. Therefore, claims 14-15 contain new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1 and 8 (and thus their dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13) recite the limitations "the front end of the flame arrester" and “the rear end of the flame arrester” in newly added lines of each independent claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The flame arrester is not described in the claims as having ends, and it is unclear in the claims what is to be considered a “front” versus a “rear” end. For purposes of examination, as best understood from the disclosed flame arrester 123 seen in e.g. instant Figs. 3 and 7 and described on page 9 of the instant specification, “the front end” corresponds to an end positioned away from the patient and “the rear end” corresponds to an end positioned toward the patient/closer to the patient than the front end.
Further regarding claim 8 (and thus its dependent claims), the phrase “may be” in line 16 renders it unclear whether the associated functionality is required or not. As best understood, for purposes of examination, it is required, such that Applicant could amend claim 8 to read similar to claim 1, i.e. “is” to address this rejection.
Further regarding claims 2 and 9, it is unclear in the claims what is meant by “the flame arrester is configured at [meaning what? positioned on? located near?] one side of the catchment canister, and the side [the one side or a different side?] of the catchment canister is coupled to the first connecting tube.” Is the flame arrester just required to be coupled between the first connecting tube and the catchment canister, or does it extend from or is positioned on or attached to a side of the catchment canister that is also coupled to the first connecting tube (would the flame arrester and side of the catchment canister run parallel to each other?), or is the flame arrester positioned on a side of the catchment canister that is different than the side of the catchment canister that is coupled to? For purposes of examination, as best understood in view of the instant specification at e.g. page 14, lines 10-15 and Fig. 7, the claim language is intended to convey that the flame arrester is positioned between the catchment canister and the first connecting tube/at an opposite end of the first connecting tube from the output tube.
Claim Interpretation
A “catchment canister” is understood to be a fluid/moisture trap.
The term “coupled” is understood to mean fluidly coupled and to encompass both direct and indirect connections/attachments, since the instant specification does not support e.g. a gas receiving tube directly connected/attached to a first connecting tube, as recited by the independent claims.
A flame arrester that provides the newly-recited functionality of claims 1 and 8 regarding pressure differences and flow speed increase is understood in view of page 9, line 25-page 10, line 2 of the instant specification to encompass one that includes a narrowing within the flame arrester, because a narrowing provides the claimed functionality as a result of the Bernoulli principle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin (US 2016/0074610 A1; hereinafter “Rubin”) in view of Cai et al. (CN 109481816 A; hereinafter “Cai”).
Regarding claim 1, Rubin discloses a wearable breathing tube system (Fig. 9), comprising:
a gas receiving tube (gas tubing 30) configured to receive a breathing gas (e.g. from medical gas source 20, paras [0066-67]);
a first connecting tube (the tube right above water trap 106 and/or one of the tubes extending from the 1-to-2 connector to cannula 118 in Fig. 9) coupled to the gas receiving tube (Fig. 9);
a catchment canister (water trap 106) coupled to the gas receiving tube and the first connecting tube (Fig. 9);
an output tube (nasal cannula 118) coupled to the first connecting tube, the output tube being configured for a user to wear and to output the breathing gas to the user (per the standard function of nasal cannulas), wherein the gas receiving tube, the catchment canister, the first connecting tube and the output tube form a supply pipeline (Fig. 9).
While Rubin further demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical gas source to include flammable gases (para [0094]), modified Rubin is silent regarding a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline, wherein the gas pressure of the front end of the flame arrester is greater than that of the rear end of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester. However, Cai teaches that it was known in the art of oxygen/flammable respiratory gas delivery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame arrester (gas blocking device 100 comprising valve 10) (Figs. 1-6) configured in the supply pipeline (e.g. Fig. 11), wherein the gas pressure of the front end (toward second linker 12) of the flame arrester is greater than that of the rear end (toward first joint 11) of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester as a result of the narrowing at valve segment gap 15 (Fig. 5) between joint 11 and linker 12 due to the Bernoulli principle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rubin to include a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline, wherein the gas pressure of the front end of the flame arrester is greater than that of the rear end of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester as taught by Cai, where the arrester taught by Cai functions as claimed by virtue of the internal narrowing, in order to provide the predictable result of a means (known flame arrester structure) for avoiding propagation of flame back to the source (and the potential ensuing explosion) when delivering flammable gases.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of French et al. (US 5,131,387; hereinafter “French”) and Dryden et al. (US 5,927,312; hereinafter “Dryden”).
Regarding claim 2, Rubin in view of Cai teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Rubin further reasonably suggests wherein a diameter of the gas receiving tube and a diameter of the first connecting tube are smaller than a diameter of the catchment canister (Fig. 9, where at least the outer diameters of the tube 30 and the tubes above trap 106 are smaller than the outer diameter of the trap 106), but Rubin does not explicitly state or depict that the diameters of the tubes on either side of the water trap are smaller than the maximum inner diameter of the water trap. However, French teaches that it was known in the in-line respiratory catchment canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the conduits upstream (bore 34 and/or conduit 16) and downstream (bore 48 and/or conduit 18) of a catchment canister (moisture trap 20) to have smaller diameters (both inner and outer) than the maximum inner diameter of the water trap (widest inner diameter of housing 22) (Figs. 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the diameters of the gas receiving tube and the first connecting tube of modified Rubin to be smaller than the maximum inner diameter of the catchment canister as suggested by Rubin and taught by French, in order to provide the predictable result of suitably sized components for their intended purposes, i.e. transport of gas at a particular flow rate and sequestration of a sufficient amount of fluid.
Modified Rubin does not explicitly recite wherein the flame arrester is configured at one side of the catchment canister, and the side of the catchment canister is coupled to the first connecting tube, or the flame arrester is a part of the catchment canister. However, Dryden teaches that it was known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame arrester (comprising heat sensitive material 44 and/or combustion resistant material layer 62/68) configured in a nasal cannula supply pipeline (Figs. 1-3 and 6-9; col. 5, line 21- col. 6, line 9 and col. 6, line 51-col. 7, line 14), wherein the flame arrester is configured, as best understood, at an opposite end of the first connecting tube (either tubing 26 OR adapter 24) from the output tube (the nasal cannula visible in Fig. 1) and at or immediately upstream of a 2-to-1 connector (connector 28); also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. [Note: Cai Figs. 10-11 and Dryden Figs. 2, 6 and 8 demonstrate that it was known in the respiratory flame arrester before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable location anywhere along a supply line for positioning a flame arrester.] Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include wherein the flame arrester is either in the 1-2 connector of Rubin or located immediately upstream of the 1-2 connector of Rubin as taught by Dryden, e.g. within the tube right above water trap 106 of Rubin or as a part of the water trap 106 itself, because those are components located immediately upstream of the 1-2 connector of Rubin, and thus, as best understood, configured at one side of the catchment canister coupled to the first connecting tube, or the flame arrester is a part of the catchment canister, in order to provide the predictable result of locating the flame arrester in a suitable location along the finite locations in Rubin for performing this function, particularly one where overheating/potentially dangerous vaporization of fluid in the water trap 106 is avoided by virtue of providing the flame arrester downstream or at the downstream end of the water trap, i.e. “coupled to” the first connecting tube.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Cai (as applied to claim 1 above), and further in view of French.
Regarding claim 3, Rubin in view of Cai teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Rubin further discloses a first adapter (the 1-to-2 connector above water trap 106) coupled to the first connecting tube (Fig. 9), the catchment canister being coupled to the gas receiving tube and the first adapter (Fig. 9). While Rubin does not explicitly recite that that the water trap 106 is separably coupled to the gas receiving tube and the first adapter, Rubin does teach tubing being separably connected to components (para [0067]), and see also French Fig. 3, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the catchment canister of modified Rubin to be separably coupled to the gas receiving tube and the first adapter, e.g. as taught by French, in order to provide the predictable result of being able to disconnect and empty, clean, replace and/or remove the water trap from the system.
Regarding claim 8, Rubin discloses a breathing equipment (Fig. 9), comprising:
a wearable breathing tube system (Fig. 9), comprising:
a gas receiving tube (gas tubing 30) configured to receive a breathing gas (e.g. from medical gas source 20, paras [0066-67]);
a first connecting tube (one of the tubes extending from the 1-to-2 connector to cannula 118 in Fig. 9) coupled to the gas receiving tube (Fig. 9);
an output tube (nasal cannula 118) coupled to the first connecting tube, the output tube being configured for a user to wear and to output the breathing gas to the user (per the standard function of nasal cannulas), wherein the gas receiving tube, the first connecting tube and the output tube form a supply pipeline (Fig. 9);
a catchment canister (water trap 106) coupled to the supply pipeline and forming a part of the supply pipeline for collecting a liquid in the supply pipeline (Fig. 9; para [0086]).
While Rubin further demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical gas source to include flammable gases (para [0094]), modified Rubin is silent regarding a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline, wherein the gas pressure of the front end of the flame arrester [is] greater than that of the rear end of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester. However, Cai teaches that it was known in the art of oxygen/flammable respiratory gas delivery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame arrester (gas blocking device 100 comprising valve 10) (Figs. 1-6) configured in the supply pipeline (e.g. Fig. 11), wherein the gas pressure of the front end (toward second linker 12) of the flame arrester [is] greater than that of the rear end (toward first joint 11) of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester as a result of the narrowing at valve segment gap 15 (Fig. 5) between joint 11 and linker 12 due to the Bernoulli principle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rubin to include a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline, wherein the gas pressure of the front end of the flame arrester [is] greater than that of the rear end of the flame arrester, and the flow speed of the breathing gas is increased[,] when the breathing gas flows through the flame arrester as taught by Cai, where the arrester taught by Cai functions as claimed by virtue of the internal narrowing, in order to provide the predictable result of a means (known flame arrester structure) for avoiding propagation of flame back to the source (and the potential ensuing explosion) when delivering flammable gases.
While Rubin further reasonably suggests wherein a diameter of the supply pipeline (e.g. the outer diameter of the gas receiving tube and/or the first connecting tube) is smaller than a diameter of the catchment canister (Fig. 9, where at least the outer diameters of the tube 30 and the tubes above the 2-to-1 connector are smaller than the outer diameter of the trap 106), Rubin does not explicitly state or depict that the diameters of the tubes on either side of the water trap are smaller than the maximum inner diameter of the water trap. However, French teaches that it was known in the in-line respiratory catchment canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the conduits upstream (bore 34 and/or conduit 16) and downstream (bore 48 and/or conduit 18) of a catchment canister (moisture trap 20) to have smaller diameters (both inner and outer) than the maximum inner diameter of the water trap (widest inner diameter of housing 22) (Figs. 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the diameter of e.g. the gas receiving tube and/or the first connecting tube of modified Rubin to be smaller than the maximum inner diameter of the catchment canister as suggested by Rubin and taught by French, in order to provide the predictable result of suitably sized components for their intended purposes, i.e. transport of gas at a particular flow rate and sequestration of a sufficient amount of fluid.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Cai (as applied to claim 1 above), and further in view of French (as applied to claim 8 above) and Grote (US 3,681,899; hereinafter “Grote”).
Regarding claim 4, Rubin in view of Cai teaches the system of claim 1, but modified Rubin is silent regarding wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid. However, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C, French demonstrates that it was well known known in the in-line respiratory catchment canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the catchment canister (moisture trap 20) has a first canister body (e.g. first half 74) and a second canister body (second half 76) which are separate from each other (Figs. 2-3), and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to [form] an accommodating space (chamber 62) of the catchment canister to collect a liquid (Fig. 3), and Grote teaches that it was known in the in-line gas filtering art/to solve the problem of a suitable and/or openable housing for an in-line accommodating space before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the halves of a canister to be separatable (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid as taught by French and Grote, in order to utilize known structure (two separatable halves of a hollow cylinder) provide the predictable result of a catchment trap that can be easily disassembled/opened for cleaning.
Regarding claim 11, Rubin in view of Cai and French teaches the equipment of claim 8, wherein Rubin further discloses wherein the catchment canister is configured between the gas receiving tube and the first connecting tube (Rubin Fig. 9), but modified Rubin is silent regarding wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid. However, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C, French demonstrates that it was well known known in the in-line respiratory catchment canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the catchment canister (moisture trap 20) has a first canister body (e.g. first half 74) and a second canister body (second half 76) which are separate from each other (Figs. 2-3), and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to [form] an accommodating space (chamber 62) of the catchment canister to collect a liquid (Fig. 3), and Grote teaches that it was known in the in-line gas filtering art/to solve the problem of a suitable and/or openable housing for an in-line accommodating space before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the halves of a canister to be separatable (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid as taught by French and Grote, in order to utilize known structure (two separatable halves of a hollow cylinder) provide the predictable result of a catchment trap that can be easily disassembled/opened for cleaning.
Claim(s) 5-7 and claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and Rubin in view of Cai and French as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dryden.
Regarding claim 5, Rubin in view of Cai teaches the system of claim 1, but modified Rubin is silent regarding wherein the flame arrester is configured between the catchment canister and the first connecting tube. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C [Note: Cai Figs. 10-11 (and Dryden Figs. 2, 6 and 8) demonstrate that it was known in the respiratory flame arrester before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable location anywhere along a supply line for positioning a flame arrester], and Dryden educates modified Rubin to include wherein the flame arrester is configured between the catchment canister (106) and the first connecting tube (the tube right above water trap 106 and/or one of the tubes extending from the 1-to-2 connector to cannula 118 in Rubin Fig. 9), because Dryden educates modified Rubin to include wherein the flame arrester is either in the 1-2 connector of Rubin or located immediately upstream of the 1-2 connector of Rubin, i.e. within the tube right above water trap 106, as discussed above regarding claim 2, in order to provide the predictable result of locating the flame arrester in a suitable location along the finite locations in Rubin for performing this function, particularly one where overheating/potentially dangerous vaporization of fluid in the water trap 106 is avoided by virtue of providing the flame arrester downstream or at the downstream end of the water trap.
Regarding claim 6, Rubin in view of Cai and Dryden teaches the system of claim 5, wherein Rubin further discloses a first adapter (the 1-to-2 connector above water trap 106) coupled to the first connecting tube and the catchment canister (Fig. 9), but modified Rubin is silent regarding the flame arrester being contained in the first adapter and coupled to the catchment canister by the first adapter. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C [Note: Cai Figs. 10-11 and Dryden Figs. 2, 6 and 8 demonstrate that it was known in the respiratory flame arrester before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable location anywhere along a supply line for positioning a flame arrester], and Dryden educates modified Rubin to include the flame arrester being contained in the first adapter and coupled to the catchment canister by the first adapter, because Dryden educates modified Rubin to include wherein the flame arrester is in the 1-2 connector of Rubin as discussed above regarding claims 2 and 5, in order to provide the predictable result of locating the flame arrester in a suitable location along the finite locations in Rubin for performing this function, particularly one that predictably combines the flame arresting functionality with another component to reduce the number of components required to be connected into the system, and at a location where overheating/potentially dangerous vaporization of fluid in the water trap 106 is avoided by virtue of providing the flame arrester downstream of the water trap.
Regarding claim 7, Rubin in view of Cai and Dryden teaches the system of claim 6, wherein Rubin further discloses/reasonably suggests wherein the output tube (cannula 118) has two gas outlets (the prongs visible in Fig. 9) to output the breathing gas to the user (per the standard function of nasal cannulas), the first connecting tube comprises a pair of sub-connecting tubes respectively coupled to a side opening of the output tube (left and right tubes extending from the respective sides of the cannula 118 and meeting at the 1-to-2 connector above water trap 106 in Rubin Fig. 9), as a standard and thus easily sourced/manufactured cannula configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Rubin in view of Cai and French teaches the equipment of claim 8, wherein Rubin further discloses that the breathing tube system further comprises a first adapter (the 1-to-2 connector above water trap 106) coupled to the first connecting tube and the catchment canister (Fig. 9), but modified Rubin does not explicitly recite wherein the flame arrester is configured at one side of the catchment canister, and the side of the catchment canister is coupled to the first connecting tube, or the flame arrester is a part of the catchment canister. However, Dryden teaches that it was known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame arrester (comprising heat sensitive material 44 and/or combustion resistant material layer 62/68) configured in a nasal cannula supply pipeline (Figs. 1-3 and 6-9; col. 5, line 21- col. 6, line 9 and col. 6, line 51-col. 7, line 14), wherein the flame arrester is configured, as best understood, at an opposite end of the first connecting tube (either tubing 26 OR adapter 24) from the output tube (the nasal cannula visible in Fig. 1) and at or immediately upstream of a 2-to-1 connector (connector 28); also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. [Note: Cai Figs. 10-11 and Dryden Figs. 2, 6 and 8 demonstrate that it was known in the respiratory flame arrester before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a suitable location anywhere along a supply line for positioning a flame arrester.] Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include wherein the flame arrester is either in the 1-2 connector of Rubin or located immediately upstream of the 1-2 connector of Rubin as taught by Dryden, e.g. within the tube right above water trap 106 of Rubin or as a part of the water trap 106 itself, because those are components located immediately upstream of the 1-2 connector of Rubin, and thus, as best understood, configured at one side of the catchment canister coupled to the first connecting tube, or the flame arrester is a part of the catchment canister, in order to provide the predictable result of locating the flame arrester in a suitable location along the finite locations in Rubin for performing this function, particularly one where overheating/potentially dangerous vaporization of fluid in the water trap 106 is avoided by virtue of providing the flame arrester downstream or at the downstream end of the water trap, i.e. “coupled to” the first connecting tube.
Regarding claim 10, Rubin in view of Cai, French and Dryden teaches the equipment of claim 9, wherein Rubin further discloses wherein the first connecting tube comprises a pair of sub-connecting tubes respectively coupled to a side opening of the output tube (left and right tubes extending from the respective sides of the cannula 118 and meeting at the 1-to-2 connector above water trap 106 in Rubin Fig. 9), as a standard and thus easily sourced/manufactured cannula configuration.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Cai and French as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2018/0028774 A1; hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 12, Rubin in view of Cai and French teaches the equipment of the claim 8, wherein Rubin further discloses a number of different gas sources to which the cannula system can be connected (para [0094]), but modified Rubin is silent regarding the system further comprising an electrolytic module configured to generate the breathing gas. However, Lin demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for respiratory gas source to include an electrolytic module (electrolysis tank 100) (Fig. 1) configured to generate breathing gas (comprising hydrogen 106) (para [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of modified Rubin to include an electrolytic module configured to generate the breathing gas as taught by Lin, in order to provide the predictable results of a system for delivering a healthy gas (Lin paras [0001-4]).
Regarding claim 13, Rubin in view of Cai and French teaches the equipment of claim 8, wherein Rubin further teaches using a humidifier in conjunction with the water trap (para [0010]), but modified Rubin is silent regarding an atomizer configured to generate an atomizing gas and to mix the atomizing gas with a source gas to form the breathing gas. However, Lin demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for respiratory gas source to include an atomizer (comprising vibrator 1222) (Fig. 1) configured to generate an atomized/humidifying liquid (liquid 1230 may be…pure water, para [0035]) and to mix the atomized liquid (forming atomized gas 1227) with a source gas (gas 1220) to form breathing gas (healthy gas 1228). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of modified Rubin to include an atomizer configured to generate an atomized liquid and to mix the atomized liquid with a source gas to form the breathing gas as taught by Lin, in order to provide the predictable results of a system for delivering a healthy humidified gas (Lin paras [0001-4] and [0035]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of French, Grote, and Dryden, and in the alternative, further in view of Wojtach et al. (US 2018/0094730 A1; hereinafter “Wojtach”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Rubin discloses a wearable breathing tube system (Fig. 9), comprising:
a gas receiving tube (gas tubing 30) configured to receive a breathing gas (e.g. from medical gas source 20, paras [0066-67]);
a first connecting tube (the tube right above water trap 106 and/or one of the tubes extending from the 1-to-2 connector to cannula 118 in Fig. 9) coupled to the gas receiving tube (Fig. 9);
a catchment canister (water trap 106) coupled to the gas receiving tube and the first connecting tube (Fig. 9);
an output tube (nasal cannula 118) coupled to the first connecting tube, the output tube being configured for a user to wear and to output the breathing gas to the user (per the standard function of nasal cannulas), wherein the gas receiving tube, the catchment canister, the first connecting tube and the output tube form a supply pipeline (Fig. 9).
Rubin is silent regarding wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid. However, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C, French demonstrates that it was well known known in the in-line respiratory catchment canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the catchment canister (moisture trap 20) has a first canister body (e.g. first half 74) and a second canister body (second half 76) which are separate from each other (Figs. 2-3), and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to [form] an accommodating space (chamber 62) of the catchment canister to collect a liquid (Fig. 3), and Grote teaches that it was known in the in-line gas filtering art/to solve the problem of a suitable and/or openable housing for an in-line accommodating space before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the halves of an in-line canister (members 12 and 14) to be separatable (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include wherein the catchment canister has a first canister body and a second canister body which are separatable from each other, and the first canister body is coupled to the second canister body in an opening-to-opening manner to from an accommodating space of the catchment canister to collect a liquid as taught by French and Grote, in order to utilize known structure (two separatable halves of a hollow cylinder) provide the predictable result of a catchment trap that can be easily disassembled/opened for cleaning.
Grote further teaches modified Rubin to include the first canister body (e.g. member 12) (Grote Fig. 6) being integrally formed with at least part of the gas receiving tube (comprising constricted end 26), and the second canister body (member 14) being integrally formed with at least part of the first connecting tube (comprising constricted end 28), in order to utilize known end structures (nozzles/constricted ends) to secure the canister within the lines of Rubin. In the alternative, if the narrowed ends taught by Grote are not deemed “at least a part” of their respective tubes such that modified Rubin is silent regarding the canister bodies being integral with their respective tubes, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.B, and Wojtach teaches that it was known in the respiratory gas delivery/connector art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a connector (connector 23) (Figs. 2 and 7a) to be integrally formed with at least part of the associated tube (conduit 20) (connector 23 and conduit 20 are an integral structure…overmolded, para [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rubin to include the first canister body being integrally formed with at least part of the gas receiving tube, and the second canister body being integrally formed with at least part of the first connecting tube as alternative taught by Wojtach, in order to provide the predictable results of the separable halves being integrally attached to their respective tubes to reduce the number of leakage points and/or to prevent the halves from being unintentionally detached from the system/lost when the canister is opened for e.g. cleaning.
While Rubin further demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical gas source to include flammable gases (para [0094]), Rubin is silent regarding a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline. However, Dryden demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory therapy art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame arrester (apparatus for extinguishing combustion 12) configured in a nasal cannula supply pipeline (Figs. 1-3; col. 5, line 21- col. 6, line 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rubin to include a flame arrester configured in the supply pipeline as taught by Dryden, in order to provide the predictable result of a well-known means for avoiding propagation of flame back to the source (and the potential ensuing explosion) when delivering flammable gases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional reference regarding flame arresters with narrowed portions that will function according to the Bernoulli principle: Alferes (US 4,088,436); Chen (US 6,202,667 B1); Didone et al. (US 6,615,860 B2); East (US 2009/0288663 A1); Guo et al. (CN 203866034 U); Gamard et al. (US 2019/0344041 A1); Hussein (GB 2425338 A); Radford et al. (US 2009/0288662 A1); Sun et al. (CN 205896321 U); Schulze (US 5,950,656); Schulze et al. (US 5,477,877).
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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785