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
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-5 contain improper shading (see MPEP 608.02(V)(m)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification/Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the legal phraseology of “comprising” in line 2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the apparatus” in line 2, and is suggested to read --the passive moisture trapping apparatus-- in order to more clearly reference how this limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 2 recites “The trap portion of claim 1” in line 1, and is suggested to read --The passive moisture trapping apparatus of claim 1-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claims 3-4 and 6 recite “The apparatus of claim 1” in line 1, and are suggested to read --The passive moisture trapping apparatus of claim 1-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the apparatus” in line 1, and is suggested to read --wherein the passive moisture trapping apparatus-- in order to more clearly reference how this limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the apparatus” in line 1, and is suggested to read --wherein the passive moisture trapping apparatus-- in order to more clearly reference how this limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 6 recites “S-shaped” in line 2, and is suggested to read --S-shapes-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “can be” in line 6 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the limitations following this phase are required or optional for the claimed invention, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the exhalation sensor block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “various exhalation sensor systems” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “exhalation sensor system” of claim 1 is meant to be included. For the purposes of examination, the “exhalation sensor system” of claim 1 is being interpreted as included as part of the “various exhalation sensor systems”. Moreover, the limitation “the systems” in line 3 is confusing, as it is unclear as the which system of the oxygen system of claim 1, exhalation sensor system of claim 1, or various exhalation sensor systems of claim 5 is being referenced, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, this claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, as it only recites “the trap portion of claim 1” in line 1, and therefore is not including the rest of the claim 1 apparatus.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huschke et al. (US 2010/0258129 A1) in view of Usuda et al. (US 2011/0209703 A1), Cortez, Jr. et al. (US 2015/0352299 A1), and Lehmann (US 2,435,721).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huschke discloses a passive moisture trapping apparatus for use with an oxygen system (water trap for a breathing tube in a patient respirator or ventilator system, which would thus provide oxygen to a patient) (Figs. 1-10; abstract; para. [0002]), the oxygen system includes an exhalation hose (breathing tube can be an expiration tube) (Figs. 1-10; para. [0021]), the apparatus comprising:
a shaped tube having a trap portion, a first end, and a second end, the second end attached to the exhalation hose (half shells 7, 8 and/or the portion of breathing tube 2 inside the half-shells 7,8 form a tube with a collection tank 3 for water and two ends attached to the breathing tube 2 portions outside of the half shells 7, 8) (Figs. 1-10; para. [0039]).
Huschke does not disclose including an exhalation sensor system; the first end attached to the exhalation sensor system.
However, Usuda teaches a ventilation apparatus (Usuda; abstract) including an exhalation sensor system; the first end attached to the exhalation sensor system (carbon dioxide concentration sensor 16 on the expiratory circuit limb, such that one end of the expiratory circuit attached to the water trap 44 is also attached to the sensor 16) (Usuda; Fig. 1; para. [0033]; para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Huschke system to include an exhalation sensor system; the first end attached to the exhalation sensor system, as taught by Usuda, for the purpose of enabling the apparatus to monitor the patient’s carbon dioxide levels for a normal or alarming state (Usuda; para. [0039]).
Huschke does not disclose the trap portion having horizontal beams running across the trap portion such that a passive moisture trapping material can be inserted and removed from the trap portion.
However, Cortez teaches a system for mechanical ventilation (Cortez; para. [0032]) wherein the trap portion is a passive moisture trapping material (absorbent pad is a suitable moisture removing device) (Cortez; para. [0055]). Moreover, Lehmann teaches a respirator (Lehmann; col. 1, lines 1-5) including the trap portion having a horizontal beam running across the trap portion such that a passive moisture trapping material can be inserted and removed from the trap portion (sponge 19 for absorbing excess moisture has a cross wire 20 removably holding it in place) (Lehmann; Figs. 2-3; col. 1, lines 36-40; col. 3, lines 33-38). Furthermore, the MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) explains that the mere duplication of parts, in this case having more than one horizontal beam, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Huschke apparatus by substituting the water trap 3 for an absorbent pad, i.e. a passive moisture trapping material, for the purpose of providing an alternate suitable moisture removing device which one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect to perform similarly well (Cortez; para. [0055]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified Huschke trap portion such that the trap portion has horizontal beams running across the trap portion such that a passive moisture trapping material can be inserted and removed from the trap portion, as taught by Lehmann and the MPEP, for the purpose of enabling the passive moisture trapping material to be removed (Lehmann; Figs. 2-3; col. 1, lines 36-40; col. 3, lines 33-38), thereby enabling the passive moisture trapping material to be replaced or cleaned.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Huschke teaches wherein the shaped tube is a shape selected from the group consisting of symmetrical J, U, and S-shaped (half shells 7, 8 and the breathing tube 2 portion inside form a symmetrical U-shaped or V-shaped tube) (Huschke; Figs. 1-10; para. [0039]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huschke in view of Usuda, Cortez, and Lehman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pukish (US 3,327,316).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Huschke teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach the trap portion of claim 1 secures the passive moisture trapping material by adhesion.
However, Pukish teaches a moisture absorbing pad (moisture absorbing pad 30) (Pukish; Fig. 4; col. 3, lines 33-41) that secures the passive moisture trapping material by adhesion (moisture absorbing pad 30 is made of soft felt padding or open-cell polyurethane foam, and are secured with a pressure-sensitive adhesive) (Pukish; Fig. 4; col. 3, lines 33-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Huschke trap portion such that it secures the passive moisture trapping material by adhesion, as taught by Pukish, for the purpose of ensuring the pads are replaceable (Pukish; col. 3, lines 33-46) while also providing an additional mechanism to help more securely hold the pad in place.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huschke in view of Usuda, Cortez, and Lehman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harshman et al. (US 2017/0251952 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Huschke teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the apparatus further includes an o-ring disposed between the first end and the exhalation sensor block.
However, Harshman teaches an oxygen mask system (Harshman; para. [0032]) wherein the apparatus further includes an o-ring disposed between the first end and the exhalation sensor block (exhalation sensor 82 body coupled to an exhalation valve port 34 via a gasket 84) (Harshman; Figs. 5-6; para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Huschke exhalation sensor block and first end such that they include an o-ring disposed between the first end and the exhalation sensor block, as taught by Harshman, for the purpose of providing a seal between the two components, and thereby help to prevent or reduce leaks.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huschke in view of Usuda, Cortez, and Lehman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunaratnam et al. (US 2020/0030564 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Huschke teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the apparatus is manufactured from a process selected from the group consisting of polymeric additive manufacturing, metallic additive manufacturing, injection molding, casting, and extrusion.
However, Gunaratnam teaches an assembly for delivering breathable gas (Gunaratnam; abstract) wherein the apparatus is manufactured from a process selected from injection molding and extrusion (conduits may be manufactured by extrusion or injection molding) (Gunaratnam; para. [0204]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Huschke apparatus to be manufactured from a process selected from injection molding and extrusion, as taught by Gunaratnam, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable method of manufacturing the apparatus which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform similarly well (Gunaratnam; para. [0204]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huschke in view of Usuda, Cortez, and Lehman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niklewski (US 2009/0283097 A1) and Grauer (US 2003/0200011 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Huschke teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach the passive moisture trapping apparatus of claim 1 that includes different cross-sectional geometries that are designed to enable adaptation to various exhalation sensor systems, to include allowing the systems to maintain native electrical connections and trigger devices.
However, Niklewski teaches a cannula assembly to deliver oxygen (Niklewski; para. [0014]) including various exhalation sensor systems (assembly has both a carbon dioxide sensor 64 and a pressure sensor 88) (Niklewski; Fig. 3; para. [0019]; para. [0024]). Moreover, Grauer teaches a controlled HVAC system (Grauer; para. [0021]) including different cross-sectional geometries that are designed to enable adaptation to various exhalation sensor systems, to include allowing the systems to maintain native electrical connections and trigger devices (sensor sockets 28 have different cross-sectional geometries that prevent the insertion of an incorrect plug 29 of a sensor cable 35, and so the system would be able to maintain the correct electrical connections between the electrical contacts in the sockets 28 and the respective plugs 29) (Grauer; Fig. 5; para. [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Huschke exhalation sensor system by including a pressure sensor, and thereby having various exhalation sensor systems, as taught by Niklewski, for the purpose of enabling the device to determine whether a patient is inhaling or exhaling as well as their respiratory rate (Niklewski; para. [0024]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Huschke apparatus to include different cross-sectional geometries that are designed to enable adaptation to various exhalation sensor systems, to include allowing the systems to maintain native electrical connections and trigger devices, as taught by Grauer, for the purpose of preventing a user from inserting a sensor into the wrong socket (Grauer; para. [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0160052 A1 by Rentsch et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a water collection device with a replaceable sponge inside.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785