DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Fig. 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Specifically, Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram according to International Patent Application No. WO2016/02797 (referred to as “P34906WO”), and instant application does not claim benefit of this international application. See Spec. p. 5, ll. 25–31, p. 32, l. 5.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 recites:
11. A system to capture and anaesthetic agent from a theatre environment and to extract captured anaesthetic agent, the system comprising:
equipment to capture anaesthetic agent and equipment to extract anaesthetic agent, wherein the equipment to capture anaesthetic agent is selected from remote from the equipment to extract anaesthetic agent, remote from the theatre environment, or remote from both the equipment to extract anaesthetic agent and the theatre environment. Emphasis added.
Claim 11 is objected to because “and” should be changed to “an.” To overcome this objection, claim 11 could be amended to read:
11. A system to capture [[and]] an anaesthetic agent from a theatre environment and to extract captured anaesthetic agent, the system comprising:
equipment to capture anaesthetic agent and equipment to extract anaesthetic agent, wherein the equipment to capture anaesthetic agent is selected from remote from the equipment to extract anaesthetic agent, remote from the theatre environment, or remote from both the equipment to extract anaesthetic agent and the theatre environment.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–10, 13, 15 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An anaesthetic agent capture system comprising:
a pressure-intolerant inner sleeve for containing filter material for capturing one or more types of anaesthetic agent; and
a pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted so as to permit exposure of pressure-intolerant inner sleeve contents to pressures required for extraction of the said one or more types of anaesthetic agent from said filter material;
wherein the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve comprises two ends each having an end cap, and wherein the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is configured to be sealed into the pressure-tolerant outer tube by one or both of the end caps. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “pressure-intolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how little pressure the inner sleeve can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-intolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claims 2–10 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 3 recites:
3. The anaesthetic agent capture system of claim 1, wherein the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is located remotely from the pressure-tolerant outer tube during capture of said one or more types of anaesthetic agent. Emphasis added.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the limitation—“the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is located remotely from the pressure-tolerant outer tube”—contradicts claim 1, which requires that the pressure-intolerant inner tube is “inserted” into the pressure-tolerant outer tube (in the limitation “a pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted”).
Claim 4 recites:
4. The anaesthetic agent capture system of claim 1, wherein once the filter material is loaded with captured anaesthetic agent the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is loaded into the pressure-tolerant outer tube. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 4 is an apparatus claim because it is to a system. But the limitation of—“once the filter material is loaded with captured anaesthetic agent the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is loaded into the pressure-tolerant outer tube”—is a method step of using the apparatus. Therefore, it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows the method step to be performed, or whether infringement would require that the method step is actually performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim when claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite). To overcome this rejection, claim 4 could be rewritten as:
Claim 4 is also indefinite because it indicates that the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is not inserted in the pressure-tolerant outer tube (before it is loaded into the pressure-tolerant outer tube), which contradicts claim 1, which requires that the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is “inserted” into the pressure-tolerant outer tube.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it depends from claim 4.
Claim 8 recites:
8. The anaesthetic agent capture system of claim 1, wherein the system receives exhaust of an anaesthetic circuit. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome this rejection, claim 8 could be rewritten as:
8. The anaesthetic agent capture system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to receive
Claim 13 recites:
13. The system of claim 12, wherein inner sleeves are filled with anaesthetic agent, a pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is loaded into a pressure-tolerant outer tube in the vehicle and contents of the inner sleeve extracted, then the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is returned.
Claim 13 is indefinite because “pressure-intolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how little pressure the inner sleeve can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-intolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 13 is also indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 13 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 13 is an apparatus claim because it is to a system. But the claim also recites method steps of using the apparatus in the limitations—“a pressure-intolerant sleeve is loaded into a pressure-tolerant outer tube in the vehicle and contents of the inner sleeve extracted, then the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is returned.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 13 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is returned” as the claim fails to specify where the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is returned to.
Claim 15 recites:
15. The system of claim 14, wherein a plurality of pressure-intolerant inner sleeves are filled with anaesthetic agent and automatically loaded into pressure-tolerant housings to extract anaesthetic agent, then the pressure-intolerant inner sleeves are then stored to be taken back to the theatre environment.
Claim 15 is indefinite because “pressure-intolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how little pressure the inner sleeve can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-intolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 15 is also indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 15 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 15 is an apparatus claim because it is to a system. But the claim also recites method steps of using the apparatus in the limitations—“a plurality of pressure-intolerant inner sleeves are filled with anaesthetic agent and automatically loaded into pressure-tolerant housings to extract anaesthetic agent, then the pressure-intolerant inner sleeves are then stored to be taken back to the theatre environment.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 17 recites:
17. The system of claim 16, wherein anaesthetic gases from multiple theatres are collected onto a filter material of a pressure-tolerant chamber, and the pressure tolerant chamber containing the filter material is connected to an Anaesthetic Gas Scavenging System collecting from multiple theatres. Emphasis added.
Claim 17 is indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 17 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus (as it is to a system) and method steps of using the apparatus (in the limitations “are collected” and “collecting”). See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it depends from claim 17.
Also, claim 18 recites:
18. The system of claim 17, wherein two pressure tolerant chambers operate together, one chamber is set to collect anesthetic exhaust gases and the next chamber is set for extraction. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 18 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus (as it is to a system) and method steps of using the apparatus (in the limitation “operate together”). See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 19 recites:
19. The system of claim 11, comprising a pressure-intolerant inner sleeve for containing filter material for capturing one or more types of anaesthetic agent; and a pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted so as to permit exposure of pressure-intolerant inner sleeve contents to pressures required for extraction of the said one or more types of anaesthetic agent from said filter material; wherein the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve comprises two ends each having an end cap, and wherein the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is configured to be sealed into the pressure-tolerant outer tube by one or both of the end caps. Emphasis added.
Claim 19 is indefinite because “pressure-intolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how little pressure the inner sleeve can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-intolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 19 is also indefinite because “pressure-tolerant” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how much pressure the outer tube can be exposed to so as to be considered “pressure-tolerant.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites:
20. The system of claim 11, configured for small consumers such as veterinary practices and small hospital, or configured for large consumers such as tertiary/quaternary hospitals or in cities/regional extraction centers. Emphasis added.
Claim 20 is indefinite because “small” and “large” are relative terms that the specification fails to provide a standard of measuring and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 20 is also indefinite because “such as” is exemplary claim language that leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether each slash mark (“/”) is intended to be “and” or “or” (e.g., tertiary and quaternary hospitals, or tertiary or quaternary hospitals).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4–6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapel, US 3,941,573.
Regarding claim 1, Chapel teaches an “anaesthetic agent capture system” comprising cylindrical housing 17 and a gas adsorbent cartridge 30. See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–3.
The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 reads on the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve.” See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–3. The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 is “pressure-intolerant” because it comprises cardboard, which is a relatively pressure intolerant material. Id. The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 comprises adsorbent fillers 37, 38 for capturing anesthesia gases. Id. at col. 3, ll. 18–33. The adsorbent fillers 37, 38 read on the “filter material for capturing one or more types of anaesthetic agent.”
The cylindrical housing 17 reads on the “pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted.” See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–3. The cylindrical housing 17 is “pressure-tolerant” because it is intended to be a relatively permanent structure that the gas adsorbent cartridge 30 is inserted into, and can be made of relatively rigid materials such as metal or plastic. Id. at col. 2, ll. 58–64. The limitation of the pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted into—“so as to permit exposure of pressure-intolerant inner sleeve contents to pressures required for extraction of the said one or more types of anaesthetic agent from said filter material”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed system (an apparatus). See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 comprises “two ends,” as claimed, which are the top and bottom ends, as seen in Fig. 4. Each end has an “end cap,” which are the covers 34, 35 that cover the top and bottom ends of the cartridge 30, respectively. See Chapel Fig. 4, col. 3, ll. 15–23. The cartridge 30 is capable of being sealed into the housing 17 by bottom cover 35, as claimed, because a gasket 27 creates a seal between the bottom cover 35 and the housing 17. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
955
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of—“once the filter material is loaded with captured anaesthetic agent the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is loaded into the pressure-tolerant outer tube”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed system (an apparatus). See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 5, Chapel teaches that the cartridge 30 (the “pressure-intolerant sleeve”) is capable of mechanical pick up and automated loading into the housing 17 because, for instance, the cartridge 30 could be picked up by a mechanical device at the top of the cartridge 30 and then be inserted into the housing 17. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 6, Chapel teaches that the top and bottom covers 34, 35 (the “end caps”) are the same. See Chapel Figs. 3, 4, col. 4, ll. 10–15.
Regarding claim 8, Chapel teaches that the system is configured to receive exhaust from an anaesthetic circuit. See Chapel Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 30–47.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapel, US 3,941,573 in view of Spiegelman et al., US 6,468,333 B2.
Regarding claim 2, Chapel teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Chapel differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the pressure tolerance of the cylindrical housing 17 (the “pressure-tolerant outer tube”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the housing 17 is tolerant of supercritical pressures above 73 bar, as claimed.
But Spiegelman teaches a gas purifier apparatus comprising an outer cylindrical housing 12 that holds an inner tubular sleeve 16 where the housing 12 is made from materials such as stainless steel and can withstand pressures between 15 to 3,600 psig (1 to 248 bar). See Spiegelman Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 23–55.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the housing 12 of Spiegelman as the housing 17 of Chapel to provide a housing structure that is relatively robust. It also would have been obvious to use the housing 12 of Spiegelman as the housing 17 of Chapel because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPE 2143, subsection I, B. With this modification, the housing (the “outer tube”) is tolerant of pressures between 1 to 248 bar, which overlaps with the claimed range of tolerant of supercritical pressures above 73 bar, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
With respect to the limitation of—“so as to permit exposure of the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve contents to pressures required for extraction of the anaesthetic agent by supercritical fluid carbon dioxide”—this limitation fails patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 10, Chapel teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Chapel differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to the material used to manufacture the housing 17 (the “pressure-tolerant outer tube”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the housing 17 is a stainless-steel tube, as claimed.
But Spiegelman teaches a gas purifier apparatus comprising an outer cylindrical housing 12 that holds an inner tubular sleeve 16 where the housing 12 is made from materials such as stainless steel. See Spiegelman Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 23–55. The outer cylindrical housing 12 is beneficial because it is relatively strong as it can withstand pressures between 15 to 3,600 psig (1 to 248 bar). See Spiegelman Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 23–55.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the housing 12 of Spiegelman as the housing 17 of Chapel to provide a housing structure that is relatively robust. It also would have been obvious to use the housing 12 of Spiegelman as the housing 17 of Chapel because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPE 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapel, US 3,941,573.
Regarding claim 3, Chapel teaches that the gas adsorbent cartridge 30 (the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve”) is replaceable. See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–16. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the anesthesia system 10 of Chapel to comprise an additional gas adsorbent cartridge 30 outside of the housing 17 (the “pressure-tolerant outer tube”) to provide a replacement cartridge. With this modification, the additional gas adsorbent cartridge 30 reads on the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve.” The additional gas adsorbent cartridge 30 is located remotely from the housing 17 while the housing 17 (and the gas adsorbent cartridge 30 located inside the housing) is used to capture anesthetic agent, as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapel, US 3,941,573 in view of Whittier et al., US 2012/0055126 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Chapel teaches that the bottom cover 35 (an “end cap”) is mobile on gasket 27 (“a seal”) that is capable of moving to engage and seal the cartridge 30 (the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve”) into the housing 17 (the “pressure-tolerant outer tube”). See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 1.
Chapel differs from claim 7 because it is silent as the top cover 34 being mobile on a seal that is capable of moving to engage and seal the cartridge 30 into the housing 17.
But Whittier teaches a filter comprising a cartridge 10 that is inserted in a housing 12 where a gasket 68 is provided on either end for sealing axial ends of the cartridge 10 in the housing 12. See Whittier Fig. 3, [0028].
It would have been obvious for provide an additional gasket 27 on the top of the housing 17 of Chapel to ensure that the top end is sealed, with this modification also representing obvious duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, B. With this modification, each cover 34, 35 is mobile on a seal that is capable of moving to engage and seal the cartridge 30 into the housing 17.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapel, US 3,941,573 in view of Hunsinger et al., US 5,983,945.
Regarding claim 9, Chapel teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Chapel differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the cartridge 30 (the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve”) being a stainless-steel tube.
But Chapel teaches that the cartridge 30 comprises end covers 34, 35 that can be made of a metal such as aluminum. See Chapel col. 3, ll. 10–15. Also, Hunsinger teaches a filter canister comprising end caps 14, 16 that are made of a metal such as aluminum or stainless steel. See Hunsinger Figs. 1, 2, col. 2, ll. 35–36. It would have been obvious to manufacture the end covers 34, 35 from stainless steel because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. With this modification, the cartridge 30 reads on a “stainless steel tube” because it has a tubular structure comprising stainless steel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 11, 14, 16–18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thorne et al., US 2012/0000549 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Thorne teaches a collection system 10 for collecting or reclaiming anesthetic agents, which reads on the claimed “system to capture and anaesthetic agent from a theatre environment and to extract captured anaesthetic agent.” See Thorne Fig. 1, [0026].
The system 10 comprises collectors 42 for collecting anaesthetic agents. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0043]. The collectors 42 read on the “equipment to capture anaesthetic agent.”
The system 10 also comprises an inert purging gas system for desorbing anaesthetic agents from adsorbent material that is taken out of a collector 42 after the adsorbent material is full. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0045]–[0046]. The inert purging gas system reads on the “equipment to extract anaesthetic agent.” See Thorne Fig. 1, [0045]–[0046]. The inert purging gas system is remote from the collectors 42, as claimed, because the adsorbent material is removed from the system 10 and then regenerated in the inert purging gas system. Id. The collectors 42 are also remote from an operating room 12, 14, 16 (a “theatre”), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
856
1133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Thorne teaches that the inert purging gas system (the “individual extraction unit”) is installed in a facility. See Thorne [0046].
Regarding claim 16, Thorne teaches that a centralized, joined collection and extraction system is provided, which is the system 10 seen in Fig. 1. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 17, Thorne teaches that gases from multiple operating rooms 12, 14, 16 (“multiple theatres”) are collected onto the adsorbent material in a vessel of a collector 42 (the “filter material of a pressure-tolerant chamber”). See Thorne Fig. 1, [0043]–[0046]. The vessel is “pressure-tolerant” because it can tolerate at least some pressure. The vessel with the adsorbent material is then connected to the inert purging gas system to desorb the anaesthetic agent with the anesthetic agent being recovered for reuse. Id. at [0046]. The system that recovers the anesthetic agent reads on the “Anaesthetic Gas Scavenging System collecting from multiple theatres.”
Regarding claim 18, Thorne teaches that one of vessels of the collectors 42 and the inert purging gas stream system can operate together, because one of the collectors 42 can remain online for collection while the inert purging gas system purges anesthetic agent from contaminated adsorbent material. See Thorne [0043]–[0046]. The vessel of collector 42 reads on a “pressure tolerant chamber” and the area of the inert purging gas system receiving the vessel is a “pressure tolerant chamber” because they each can tolerate at least some pressure. The collector 42 being used to adsorb anaesthetic agent is “set to collect anaesthetic exhaust gas” and the area of the inert purging gas system receiving the vessel reads on the “next chamber is set for extraction.”
Regarding claim 20, Thorne teaches that the system 10 is configured for a hospital, which reads on “configured for small consumers such as…small hospital.” See Thorne [0026].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorne et al., US 2012/0000549 A1 in view of Levine, US 4,915,435.
Regarding claim 12, Thorne teaches the limitations of claim 11, as explained above.
Thorne differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the inert purging gas system (the “equipment to extract anaesthetic agent”) is contained within a vehicle whereby to provide a mobile extraction service.
But Thorne teaches that the inert purging gas system can be located in a hospital. Also, Levine teaches mobile vehicle comprising an expandable van that opens up to create a hospital facility, including an operating room. See Levine col. 2, ll. 5–20. The mobile hospital is beneficial because it can be transported to an area of need. It would have been obvious for the system 10 of Thorne (including the inert purging system) to be located on the mobile vehicle of Levine so that it can be transported to an area of need. With this modification, the inert purging system is contained within a vehicle to provide a mobile extraction service, as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Thorne teaches that vessels of collectors 42 are filled with an anesthetic agent. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0043]–[0046]. The hollow vessels read on the “inner sleeves.” One of the vessels is removed and loaded into the inert purging gas system. Id. This vessel reads on the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve.” The vessel is “pressure-intolerant” because there is a pressure at which it will collapse. The portion of the inert purging gas system receiving the vessel reads on the “pressure-tolerant outer tube.” It is “pressure-tolerant” because it can withstand at least some pressure. The vessel can then be returned and reinstalled. Id. at [0048].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorne et al., US 2012/0000549 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Thorne teaches a plurality of collectors 42 each having a vessel filled with adsorbent that collects anesthetic agent. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0043]. The vessels read on the “plurality of pressure-intolerant inner sleeves.” The vessels are pressure-intolerant” because there is a pressure at which they will collapse. At least one of the vessels is removed and loaded into a portion the inert purging gas system. Id. at [0046]. The portion of the inert purging gas system receiving the vessel reads is a “pressure-tolerant housing.” It is “pressure-tolerant” because it can tolerate at least some pressure. The inert purging gas system extract anesthetic agent, and then the vessel is stored at least temporarily before it can be reinstalled. Id. at [0046]–[0048]. It would have been obvious for multiple vessels to be removed with each vessel loaded into a portion of the inert purging gas system because this would merely represent obvious duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, B. It also would have been obvious for the vessels to be loaded automatically because this represents obvious automating an otherwise manual activity. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection III. These modifications read on “a plurality of pressure-intolerant sleeves are filled with anaesthetic agent and automatically loaded into pressure-tolerant housings to extract anaesthetic agent, then the pressure-intolerant inner sleeves are then stored to be taken back to the theatre environment.”
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorne et al., US 2012/0000549 A1 in view of Chapel, US 3,941,573.
Regarding claim 19, Thorne teaches the limitations of claim 11, as explained above.
Thorne differs from claim 19 because it is silent as to the system 10 comprising a pressure-intolerant inner sleeve and a pressure-tolerant outer tube, with the claimed configuration.
But Thorne teaches that the collector 42 comprises a vessel that is filled with adsorbent, where the vessel can be removed and sent to an inert purging system for desorption of anesthetic agent collected on the adsorbent. See Thorne Fig. 1, [0043]–[0046].
With this in mind, Chapel teaches filter for removing anesthetic agent comprising a housing 17 with an adsorbent cartridge 30 for collecting an anesthetic agent. See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 4–23. The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 reads on the “pressure-intolerant inner sleeve.” See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–3. The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 is “pressure-intolerant” because it comprises cardboard, which is a relatively pressure intolerant material. Id. The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 comprises adsorbent fillers 37, 38 for capturing anesthesia gases. Id. at col. 3, ll. 18–33. The adsorbent fillers 37, 38 read on the “filter material for capturing one or more types of anaesthetic agent.”
The cylindrical housing 17 reads on the “pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted.” See Chapel Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 2–3. The cylindrical housing 17 is “pressure-tolerant” because it is intended to be a relatively permanent structure that the gas adsorbent cartridge 30 is inserted into, and can be made of relatively rigid materials such as metal or plastic. Id. at col. 2, ll. 58–64. The limitation of the pressure-tolerant outer tube into which the pressure-intolerant inner sleeve is inserted into—“so as to permit exposure of pressure-intolerant inner sleeve contents to pressures required for extraction of the said one or more types of anaesthetic agent from said filter material”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed system (an apparatus). See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
The gas adsorbent cartridge 30 comprises “two ends,” as claimed, which are the top and bottom ends, as seen in Fig. 4. Each end has an “end cap,” which are the covers 34, 35 that cover the top and bottom ends of the cartridge 30, respectively. See Chapel Fig. 4, col. 3, ll. 15–23. The cartridge 30 is capable of being sealed into the housing 17 by bottom cover 35, as claimed, because a gasket 27 creates a seal between the bottom cover 35 and the housing 17. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
955
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the filter of Chapel as the vessel that is filled with adsorbent of Thorne because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 11,324,903 B2
Claims 1–11, 14–16, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,324,903 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ’903 patent teaches all of the limitations of instant claims 1–11, 14–16, 19 and 20.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,324,903 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the ’903 patent teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776