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
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 08/01/2025, has been entered, claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (WO2020208556, machine translation accessed 4/22/25 relied upon herein), hereafter Alex, in view of Hirokazu (EP2065629), further in view of Todd (EP2108927), hereafter Todd.
Regarding to Claim 1, Alex discloses a multifunction connector for non-invasive ventilation face masks, configured for connecting a non-invasive ventilation face mask to a ventilation system (par. 0006, “a device or valve specially adapted for connection to artificial airways…”); comprising a substantially tubular base body (See Fig. A below) extending along a longitudinal axis between two opposite open axial ends (See Fig. A below) and having a lateral wall closed around the axis (See Fig. A below) and delimiting an internal duct (See Fig. A below); the connector being provided with a plurality of functional connection elements projecting from the body (par. 0020, Fig. 1, 1A-1F), and the connection elements comprising: an inlet connectable to a ventilation system (par. 0020, a coupling to the passive humidifier or to the mechanical ventilator circuit (1 B); See Fig. A below) and an outlet connectable to a ventilation mask (par. 0020, the coupling to the artificial airway (1 A); See Fig. A below), positioned at respective opposite axial ends of the body and comprising respective tubular connection portions of the body (See Fig. A below); and an MDI inlet configured to receive and engage a metered-dose inhaler device (par. 0036, MDI delivery port (2); See Fig. A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, Adapted from Alex Fig. 2
Alex discloses the inlet and outlet are joined to a ventilation system and a ventilation mask (par. 0004, “This valve is specially adapted to respiratory devices (endotracheal tubes, tracheostomy cannulas, passive humidifiers, mechanical ventilator circuits, BVM (Bag Valve Mask) devices, among others), allowing the delivery of inhaled medications”), but is silent on wherein the connection portion of the inlet is shaped so as to be joined to a tube connected to the ventilation system by means of a conical coupling, and the connection portion of the outlet is shaped so as to be joined to a joint of the ventilation mask by means of a conical coupling.
However, Hirokazu teaches a known technique of using conical coupling for connecting tube lines in a respiration circuit and ventilation system (par. 0003, “Many types of this conical coupling are specified in various standards of JIS and ISO which must be applied to medical products such as a circuit for artificial respiration, parts for a circuit, and liquid medication syringe”). This known technique is applicable to the connector of Alex as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both directed to connections in a respiration circuit and ventilation system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hirokazu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Hirokazu to the teachings of Alex would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such conical coupling into similar systems. Further, applying conical coupling to the connector of Alex would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved connector providing secure coupling and providing easy attachability/detachability as taught by Hirokazu (Hirokazu, par. 0003).
Alex further discloses a universal connector (Fig. 1, 1D) that can be attached to syringe or monitoring devices (par. 0038), but is still silent on an oxygen inlet connectable to an oxygen supply pipe and a flow reading outlet connectable to a flow measuring device.
However, Todd teaches a connector for face masks (Fig. 1, flow sensor 10) an oxygen inlet connectable to an oxygen supply pipe (Fig. B below; based on the configuration, the oxygen inlet of the prior art is capable of connect to an oxygen supply pipe) and a flow reading outlet connectable to a flow measuring device (Fig. B below, based on the configuration, the flow reading outlet is capable of connect to a flow measuring device). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known connector of Alex, and modify the universal connector with the pair of fitting of Todd, to supplement additional oxygen, and allowing for precise controls of a ventilator based on the flow rate data as taught by Todd (Todd, par. 0040).
PNG
media_image2.png
279
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B, Adapted from Todd Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, wherein the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet are arranged side-by-side on the body (See Fig. B, the oxygen inlet and flow reading outlet are side-by-side; See Alex Fig. 1, element 1D for the location on the body).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, wherein the MDI inlet comprises a radial opening formed through the lateral wall of the body (See Fig. D below) and communicating with the duct via a nozzle projecting in the duct (Alex, Fig. 11 and 12, bottom portion of port for inhaled medication delivery 2); and a connection sleeve, formed integrally with the body and extending from the lateral wall around said opening (See Fig. D below).
PNG
media_image3.png
297
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. D, Adapted from Alex Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, wherein the MDI inlet is positioned on the lateral wall of the body in a position angularly staggered by 90° with respect to the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet (See Fig. A, the MDI inlet is perpendicular to the axis).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, further in view of Hanif et al. (US20240149005)
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, wherein the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet comprise respective radial openings formed through the lateral wall of the body (See Fig. B above) and communicating with the duct (Todd, Fig. 4b);
The modified Alex is silent on respective rotating joints connected in a rotatable manner to respective guide portions which protrude integrally from the body, so as to be rotatable with respect to said respective guide portions around respective rotation axes perpendicular to the axis.
However, Hanif teaches a device (Fig. 1, HME device 1) comprising of a guide portion (Fig. 8, rim 47), a body (Fig. 8, par. 13), and a rotating joint (Fig. 8, couplings 11 and 12), where respective rotating joints connected in a rotatable manner to respective guide portions which protrude integrally from the body (Fig. 8), so as to be rotatable with respect to said respective guide portions around respective rotation axes (par. 0018, “releasable rotatable coupling arrangement”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the releasable rotatable coupling of Hanif for the oxygen inlet and flow reading outlet, so that they can be easily separated to enable access to the interior of the housing as taught by Hanif (Hanif, par. 0018).
The modified Alex further discloses that the respective rotation axes are perpendicular to the axis (Examiner Notes: See Fig. A/B, the oxygen inlet/flow reading outlet are perpendicular to the axis, after the modification, the rotation axes would also be perpendicular).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 2, but is silent on wherein each rotating joint is fastened to the respective guide portion by means of a bayonet coupling so as to be axially fastened to the guide portion and rotatable with respect thereto around the respective rotation axis , and to be detachable from the guide portion to allow removal of the joint from the body.
However, Hanif teaches a device (Fig. 1, HME device 1) comprising of a guide portion (Fig. 8, rim 47), a body (Fig. 8, par. 13), and a rotating joint (Fig. 8, couplings 11 and 12), wherein the rotating joint is fastened to the respective guide portion by means of a bayonet coupling (par. 0018, Fig. 8, bayonet lugs 17) so as to be axially fastened to the guide portion and rotatable with respect thereto around the respective rotation axis, and to be detachable from the guide portion to allow removal of the joint from the body (par. 0018, Fig. 8, “two parts 13 and 14 that are connected with each other by a releasable rotatable coupling arrangement so that they can be separated”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the bayonet coupling of Hanif, to have a releasable rotatable coupling arrangement between each of the oxygen inlet/flow reading outlet and the body.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein the guide portions are different from each other and the respective joints are shaped so as to engage only the respective guide portion, thus avoiding assembly errors.
However, Alex further teaches a guide portion (par. 0036, “the IDM supply port (2) comprises an external shape”), and respective joints (par. 0036, meter dose inhaler) for inserting into the guide portion, wherein the guide portions and the respective joints are shaped so as to engage only the respective guide portion (Fig. 1, par. 0036, “The MDI supply port (2) in its upper part comprises a flat-based cylindrical cavity that allows the insertion of metered dose inhalers and its activation by the geometric interference that is generated”). The prior art teaches using a specific shape for proper connection and channeling (Alex, par. 0036). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known connector by using specific shapes for each guide portion and the respective joints for proper connection and appropriate channeling. This modification is within the predictable use of the prior art and does not produce an unexpected result, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 2, wherein each joint is substantially L-shaped (See Fig. C below; Todd Fig. 1 element 54) and comprises a coupling portion (See Fig. C below, Hanif par. 0018, cylindrical section 16), partially housed inside a collar of the respective guide portion (See Fig. C below, Hanif par. 0021, end face of the rim 47); a nozzle connected to the coupling portion and folded by 900 with respect thereto (See Fig. C below); and a radially outer annular portion, externally surrounding the coupling portion (See Fig. C below, Hanif par. 0018, bayonet lugs 17) and engaging an annular groove formed on the body (See Fig. C, Hanif par. 0021, L-shaped slots 48); and wherein the annular portion has radial through slots (See Fig. C, gap between each bayonet lugs) communicating with an annular space defined between the coupling portion and the annular portion (See Fig. C, Hanif par. 0021, patient end 16′).
PNG
media_image4.png
387
749
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. C, Adapted from Hanif Fig. 8 and Todd Fig. 1
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, in view of Hanif, further in view of Navalesi et al. (US20230277794), hereafter Navalesi.
Regarding Claim 6, Alex discloses the connector according to claim 2, comprising of a plug (Fig. 8), comprising a cap (See Fig. E), shaped to fit over an end portion of the respective joint (par. 0050, universal port caps (5), which seal possible pressure losses that may arise from said ports); and a joining band projecting from a side of the cap (See Fig. E) and having an end slit fastened to the respective joint so as to hold the plug on the joint (See Fig. E; par. 0050, “a ring that joins the body in such a way that they prevent their loss during disconnection or use”). The modified Alex does not explicitly disclose the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet are provided with respective plugs.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, and have the plugs of Alex on the respective joints of the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet to prevent pressure losses and prevent losing the plugs during use as taught by Alex (Alex, par. 0050).
PNG
media_image5.png
249
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. E, Adapted from Alex Fig. 8
The modified Alex is still silent on the plugs consisting of respective monolithic pieces in elastomeric material, for example TPE.
However, Navalesi teaches a plug (Fig. 5, connection element 30), comprising a cap (Fig. 5, cover 38) and an end slit (Fig. 5, sleeve 31), further consisting of respective monolithic pieces in elastomeric material (par. 0273, “Such further connection flap and the retaining ring 39 are defined, for example, in a single body with the sleeve 31”; par. 0270, “a further connection flap (flexible, e.g. elastically)”), for example TPE (Examiner Notes: Navalesi teaches the plug is made out of an elastomeric material, then teaches that TPE is an elastomeric material, see par. 0149). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, and have the plug as monolithic piece and in elastomeric material, for flexibility of the plug as taught by Navalesi (Navalesi, par. 0270).
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, further in view of Navalesi.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 8, where in use, with an outer lateral surface of a metered- dose inhaler device housed in the connection sleeve (Alex, par. 0035, “The MDI supply port (2) in its upper part comprises a flat-based cylindrical cavity that allows the insertion of metered dose inhalers”) (Examiner Notes: From the description, one skilled in the art would understand that the outer lateral surface of a MDI device will be housed in the connection sleeve), but is silent on wherein the MDI inlet is provided with a flexible fastening ring in elastomeric material, fitted on an end edge of the connection sleeve and having a flexible radially inner annular lip cooperating.
However, Navalesi teaches a connection element, comprising of a connection sleeve (Fig. 7, par. 0221, cylindrical outer jacket 310), a flexible fastening ring in elastomeric material (Fig. 7, par. 0221, cylindrical stretch 32), fitted on an end edge of the connection sleeve (See Fig. 7) and having a flexible radially inner annular lip cooperating (Fig. 7, inner wall 321). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the connection element of Navalesi for the MDI inlet, to ensure a secured pneumatic seal for gas as taught by Navalesi (Navalesi, par. 0213).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 9, wherein the MDI inlet is provided with a plug for closing the MDI inlet (Fig. 2, par. 0020, IDM supply port cap (3)), but is silent on the plug is integrally formed with the fastening ring to form a monolithic piece in elastomeric material and connected to the fastening ring by a flexible tongue and shaped to engage a peripheral rim of the fastening ring to close the fastening ring and thus the connection sleeve; the plug further comprising a flexible strap extending laterally from the fastening ring and is provided with an end slit engaging a pin projecting from the lateral wall of the body.
However, Navalesi further discloses a plug integrally formed with the fastening ring to form a monolithic piece in elastomeric material (Fig. 5, par. 0265, a cover 38 fixed to the sleeve 31) and connected to the fastening ring by a flexible tongue (par. 0265, “by means of a connection flap (flexible, e.g. elastically)”) and shaped to engage a peripheral rim of the fastening ring to close the fastening ring and thus the connection sleeve (par. 0266, “Said cover 38 is adapted to sealingly close the connection element 30”; See Fig. 6); the plug further comprising a flexible strap extending laterally from the fastening ring (par. 0270, “a further connection flap (flexible, e.g. elastically)”; See Fig. 7, part connecting element 39 to 33) and is provided with an end slit (Fig. 7, retaining ring 39) engaging a pin (par. 0271, “The retaining ring 39 is adapted to be fitted onto a shank (where provided) with the through hole 11 for retaining at/in proximity thereto the sleeve 31 itself”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the plug of Navalesi, to provide sealing when the inlet is not being used, and have a pin projecting from the lateral wall of the body for the retaining ring of Navalesi, to prevent losing the plug and the fastening ring.
Claim(s) 12-15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, further in view of Fyfe et al. (US20180207389), hereafter Fyfe.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, including a bypass (Fig. 1, cleaning bypass 1F), but is silent on, wherein the connection functional elements comprise also an expiratory outlet, configured for expulsion of an air flow from the body and for connection to a filter.
However, Fyfe teaches a connector for face mask (Fig. 1, exhalation port 100), comprising of an expiratory outlet (Fig. 3A-C, shroud 116), configured for expulsion of an air flow from the body (par. 0102, “The shroud 116 allows venting of the exhaled gases”) and for connection to a filter (Fig. 15A-B, par. 0102, “…an external filter 170, 172 can be attached”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, and modify the bypass with the expiratory outlet of Fyfe, to vent the exhaled air and eliminate infectious agents from the exhaled gas as taught by Fyfe (Fyfe, par. 0102)
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 12, but is silent on wherein the expiratory outlet comprises a set of radial holes formed through the lateral wall of the body and communicating with the duct; and a connection sleeve, integrally formed with the body and extending from the lateral wall to surround the set of holes.
However, Fyfe further teaches the expiratory outlet comprises a set of radial holes formed through the lateral wall of the body (par. 0102, Fig. 2B, 3B, a plurality of vent holes 114) and communicating with the duct (par. 0102, “the patient's exhaled gases can be evacuated from the breathing circuit”); and a connection sleeve, integrally formed with the body and extending from the lateral wall to surround the set of holes (Fig. 2A-B, par. 0103, “inner wall 122”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the expiratory outlet of Fyfe, to reduce draft from the exhaled gas as taught by Fyfe (Fyfe, par. 0102).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 12, wherein the expiratory outlet is positioned on the lateral wall in a position angularly staggered by 90° with respect to the MDI inlet (Alex, Fig. 1, the bypass 1F is 90° with respect to element 1C/MDI inlet around the perimeter of the tubular body of the connector) and is opposite to the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet (Alex Fig. 1, the bypass 1F is opposite to element 1D, which is where the oxygen inlet and the flow reading outlet located at after modifying).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 12, wherein the oxygen inlet, the flow reading outlet, the MDI inlet and the expiratory outlet are arranged on three sides of the body (See Alex Fig. 1, element 1D, 1C, and 1F are arranged on three sides of the body), leaving a fourth side substantially without projections defined by functional elements (Alex Fig. 1, bottom side of the connector).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Alex discloses the connector according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the connection portion of the outlet comprises a radially outer sleeve and a radially inner sleeve.
However, Fyfe further teaches a connector (Fig. 2A), having an outlet (Fig. 2A, lumen 105) having a connection portion (Fig. 2A, portion 102), wherein the connection portion of the outlet comprises a radially outer sleeve (Fig. 2A, male taper 108) and a radially inner sleeve (Fig. 2A, female taper 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the connector of Fyfe, to enable more connections to various interfaces as taught by Fyfe (Fyfe, par. 0101).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Alex discloses the connector according to claim 18, wherein the radially outer sleeve defines a male joint element and the radially inner sleeve defines a female joint element (Fyfe, par. 0101, “The top portion 102 includes a 22 mm male taper 108 and 15 mm female taper 110 nested within the 22 mm male taper 108 to enable connection to various patient interfaces”, see Fig. 2A).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, further in view of Frerichs et al. (US20180361095), hereafter Frerichs.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the body is provided with one or more arrows indicating the direction of the ventilation flow towards the patient, so as to provide a visual indication of the correct mounting direction of the connector with respect to the mask.
However, Frerichs teaches a face mask (Abstract), comprising of a body (Fig. 9, mask body 9), and the body is provided with one or more arrows indicating the direction of the ventilation flow towards the patient (par. 0080, Fig. 9, “The knobs can also be configured as rays (13) or arrow-like elevations which lead radially away from the outflow channels (8) and thus indicate the discharge direction of the respiratory gases”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the arrow labels of Frerichs, to provide clear visual indications of the gas direction as taught by Frerichs (Frerichs, par. 0080).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Hirokazu, in view of Todd, further in view of McCarthy et al. (US20170143932), hereafter McCarthy.
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Alex discloses a connector according to claim 1, wherein the body consists of a monolithic piece (par. 0030, “the body (1) is characterized by being a single, solid piece”; ), but is silent on the body is in polymeric material, for example polycarbonate, and is made of a blue colored polymer material at least partially transparent, if the connector is designed for non-ventilated masks; or of a white or non-colored polymer material at least partially transparent, if the connector is designed for ventilated masks.
Alex does not specify the material used for the body; however, Alex does teach that the bypass (Fig. 1 element 1F) is made out of a polymer material (par. 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the body of the connector of Alex to be in polymeric material, for the connector to be flexible, durable, and biocompatible as taught by Alex (Alex, par. 0040).
The modified Alex is still silent on the body is made of a blue colored polymer material at least partially transparent, if the connector is designed for non-ventilated masks; or of a white or non-colored polymer material at least partially transparent, if the connector is designed for ventilated masks.
However, McCarthy teaches a mask (Fig. 4A, mask 250), comprising of a inlet port connected to the mask (Fig. 4A, mask inlet port 270). McCarthy then teaches that the mask inlet port has predetermined color based on the size or intended use of the mask (par. 0078). The prior art employs different colors to indicate mask intended use. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known connector by selecting different colors to represent different functionalities of the mask, such as ventilated or non-ventilated. This modification is within the predictable use of the prior art and does not produce an unexpected result, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, the claimed colors are considered as a design choice, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious as there is a lack of evidence that the claimed colors are significant, See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex, in view of Fyfe.
Regarding Claim 20, Alex discloses a multifunction connector for non-invasive ventilation face masks, configured for connecting a non-invasive ventilation face mask to a ventilation system (par. 0006, “a device or valve specially adapted for connection to artificial airways…”); comprising a substantially tubular base body (See Fig. A) extending along a longitudinal axis between two opposite open axial ends (See Fig. A) and having a lateral wall closed around the axis (See Fig. A) and delimiting an internal duct (See Fig. A); the connector being provided with a plurality of functional connection elements projecting from the body (par. 0020, Fig. 1, 1A-1F), and the connection elements comprising: an inlet connectable to a ventilation system (par. 0020, a coupling to the passive humidifier or to the mechanical ventilator circuit (1 B); See Fig. A) and an outlet connectable to a ventilation mask (par. 0020, the coupling to the artificial airway (1 A); See Fig. A), positioned at respective opposite axial ends of the body and comprising respective tubular connection portions of the body (See Fig. A);
Alex is silent on wherein the connection portion of the outlet comprises a radially outer sleeve and a radially inner sleeve, wherein the radially outer sleeve defines a male joint element and the radially inner sleeve defines a female joint element.
However, Fyfe teaches a connector (Fig. 2A), having an outlet (Fig. 2A, lumen 105) having a connection portion (Fig. 2A, portion 102), wherein the connection portion of the outlet comprises a radially outer sleeve (Fig. 2A, male taper 108) and a radially inner sleeve (Fig. 2A, female taper 110), wherein the radially outer sleeve defines a male joint element and the radially inner sleeve defines a female joint element (par. 0101, “The top portion 102 includes a 22 mm male taper 108 and 15 mm female taper 110 nested within the 22 mm male taper 108 to enable connection to various patient interfaces”, see Fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known connector of Alex, with the connector of Fyfe, to enable more connections to various interfaces as taught by Fyfe (Fyfe, par. 0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hirokazu.
Specifically, Hirokazu teaches using conical couplings in a respiration circuit. New claims 18-20 are obvious in view of Fyfe.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785