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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 12, 22, 26-27, 32-34, 39, 43, 47, 49-50, 62, and 67-69 and pending in the application. Claims 3, 5-11, 13-21, 23-25, 28-31, 35-38, 40-42, 44-46, 48, 51-61, and 63-66 are cancelled. The amendments to the claims overcome most of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 3/31/2026. The 112(b) rejections which have not been overcome are included again in this Office Action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 62 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 62, line 12: please correct “the patient interface” to “the interface”
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 32-34 and 39 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 32 recites the limitation “a first end of the patient interface” in lines 1-2. However, claim 4, from which claim 32 depends, previously introduces “a first end in a longitudinal direction of the patient interface” in line 3. It is unclear whether the first end of the patient interface in claim 32 is intended to be the same as the first end of the patient interface in claim 4. It is further unclear based on the lack of clarity of the “first end” and on Figures 4A-H whether the housing inlet and the housing outlet would be the same as the interface inlet and the interface outlet, respectively, as it appears that if the support structure were to be located at the first end of the patient interface, then inlet 13 and outlet 14 of each of Figures 4A-H may improperly serve as both the interface/housing inlet and the interface/housing outlet, respectively. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets claim 32 as “The patient interface of claim 4, further comprising a support structure at the second end of the patient interface, the support structure defining a housing inlet and a housing outlet, the housing outlet in fluid communication with the interface inlet”.
Claims 33-34 and 39 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on rejected claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 12, 22, 26-27, 32-34, 39, 43, 49-50, 62, and 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Linden et al. (US 2005/0119607 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Van Der Linden ‘607”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Linden '607 discloses a patient interface for protecting a surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0004], [0020]-[0021]), the patient interface comprising:
one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) defining at least in part a gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) capable of directing gases to the surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0031], gases must pass through the heparin coating on porous body 3 to exit into the surgical cavity), the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) having a first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) in a longitudinal direction of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) and a second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) opposite the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]-[0022], [0026]-[0027]);
an interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) at the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2), the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) fluidly connectable with a gas source (gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0027]);
an interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) positioned at the second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]); and
one or more deformable elements (stiffening member 18) positioned between the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) and the second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]), the one or more deformable elements (stiffening member 18) configured to provide a direction for the gas flow path (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 bends to retain a selectable shape of first conduit portion 1’ and thus the gas flow path through the device of Figs. 1-2),
wherein the one or more deformable elements (stiffening member 18) are deformable to bend the gas flow path and allow the patient interface to be bent across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]),
wherein the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) is configured to direct the gases to exit the gas flow path of the patient interface only via the second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0026]-[0027], [0031], gas only exits the distal end of the device of Figs. 1-2 through the heparin coating on porous body 3).
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Linden '607 discloses a patient interface for protecting a surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0004], [0020]-[0021]), the patient interface comprising:
a first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) in a longitudinal direction of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) and a second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) opposite the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]-[0022], [0026]-[0027]);
an interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) at the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2), the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) fluidly connectable with a gas source (gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0027]);
an interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]),
an enclosing layer (heparin coating on porous body 3) at least partly defining a gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) between the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0031], gases must pass through the heparin coating on porous body 3 to exit into the surgical cavity), and
a deformable element (stiffening member 18) providing a bending direction for the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 bends to retain a selectable shape of first conduit portion 1’ and thus the gas flow path through the device of Figs. 1-2),
wherein the deformable element (stiffening member 18) is configured to be deformed to bend the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) and allow a distal section (see Figs. 1-2, the section including and distal to first conduit portion 1’ can be considered a distal section) of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) to be bent across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) into a bent shape corresponding to the surgical cavity and to retain the bent shape (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 bends to retain a selectable shape of first conduit portion 1’ and thus the gas flow path through the device of Figs. 1-2),
wherein the patient interface is configured to deliver a conditioned flow of gas to the surgical cavity (see par. [0023]-[0025]), the conditioned flow of gas:
i) having a reduced velocity relative to a velocity of a flow of gas at the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) (see par. [0025]),
ii) having a diffuse flow (see par. [0025]),
iii) being substantially laminar or non-turbulent (see par. [0025]), or
any combination of (i) to (iii) (see par. [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Linden '607 discloses a patient interface for protecting a surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0004], [0020]-[0021]), comprising:
an interface inlet (inlet at proximal end of first conduit portion 1') at a first end (proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ of Figs. 1-2 nearest second conduit portion 1”) in a longitudinal direction of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2), the interface inlet (inlet at proximal end of first conduit portion 1') configured to connect to a gases supply tube (second conduit portion 1") (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0027]);
an interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) at a second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) opposite of the first end (proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ of Figs. 1-2 nearest second conduit portion 1”), the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) configured to deliver diffused gases to the surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0025]); and
one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) at least partly defining a gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) between the interface inlet (inlet at proximal end of first conduit portion 1') and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]-[0022], [0026]-[0027], [0031]), the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) including a formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) between the interface inlet (inlet at proximal end of first conduit portion 1') and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see Figs. 1- 2, par. [0027]);
the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) comprising a gas permeable substrate (foam body of porous body 3, see par. [0012], [0025], [0021]) enclosed by the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0012], [0021], [0025], [0031]); and
at least one deformable element (stiffening member 18) disposed within the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]), the at least one deformable element (stiffening member 18) forming at least one bending direction for the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 is located within the section of the device from the proximal end of the first conduit portion 1’ to the distal end of the porous body 3 and allows the section of the device from the proximal end of the first conduit portion 1’ to the distal end of the porous body 3 to be bent and retained into a selectable shape).
Regarding claim 12, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein the gas permeable substrate (foam body of porous body 3, see par. [0012], [0025], [0021]) comprises an open cell foam (see par. [0012], [0025], [0021]).
Regarding claim 22, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein gases exiting the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) are substantially laminar and/or non-turbulent (see par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 26, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) each comprise a membrane (see par. [0031]).
Regarding claim 27, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) are each formed of a breathable material that allows passage of water molecules through the breathable material (see par. [0031]).
Regarding claim 32, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, further comprising a support structure (attachment member 15) at the second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3, see 112b rejection/interpretation of claim 32 above) of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2), the support structure (attachment member 15) defining a housing inlet (inlet of channel 16 at first conduit portion 1') and a housing outlet (outlet of channel 16 at porous body 3), the housing outlet (outlet of channel 16 at porous body 3) being in fluid communication with the interface inlet (inlet at proximal end of first conduit portion 1') (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0026]-[0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 33, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 32, wherein the at least one deformable element (stiffening member 18) attaches to the support structure (attachment member 15) (see Fig. 2, par. [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 34, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 32, wherein the support structure (attachment member 15) abuts the gas permeable substrate (porous body 3) (see Fig. 2, par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 39, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 32, further comprising a tube (first conduit portion 1') having a first end (distal end of first conduit portion 1' at attachment member 15) and a second end (proximal end of first conduit portion 1'), the first end (distal end of first conduit portion 1' at attachment member 15) of the tube (first conduit portion 1’) connectable to the housing inlet (inlet of channel 16 at first conduit portion 1') of the support structure (attachment member 15) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0026]-[0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 43, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, further comprising a front surface (proximal surface of attachment member 15 at first conduit portion 1') and a rear surface (distal surface of attachment member 15 at porous body 3), wherein the rear surface (distal surface of attachment member 15 at porous body 3) comprises an adhesive (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0026]-[0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 49, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 43, wherein the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) includes a cut-out on the rear surface (distal surface of attachment member 15 at porous body 3) adjacent the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see par. [0025]-[0026], [0031], gas flows from attachment member and through porous body 3 and its heparin coating into the surgical cavity such that at least one cut-out is present in each of the attachment member 15, porous body 3, and heparin coating).
Regarding claim 50, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of a side region of the gas permeable substrate (foam body of porous body 3, see par. [0012], [0025], [0021]) is unobstructed (see Fig. 2, par. [0026], [0030], porous body 3 is only obstructed where it attaches to attachment member 15).
Regarding claim 62, Van Der Linden '607 discloses a method of protecting a patient from a loss of moisture and/or loss of heat and/or from an infection at a surgical site during surgery (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0004], [0020]-[0021], [0024]), the method comprising:
positioning an interface (see Figs. 1-2) on a surface adjacent the surgical site (see Fig. 1, par. [0020]), the interface (see Figs. 1-2) comprising:
one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) defining at least in part a gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) capable of directing gases to the surgical site (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0031]), the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) having a first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) in a longitudinal direction of the interface (see Figs. 1-2) and a second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) opposite the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]-[0022], [0026]-[0027]);
an interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) positioned at the first end (proximal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest gas source 2) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0027]);
an interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) positioned at the second end (distal end of device of Figs. 1-2 nearest porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021]); and
bending a deformable element (stiffening member 18) to bend the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) and a distal-most section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3 can be considered the distal-most section of the device of Figs. 1-2) of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet (inlet at connection to gas source 2) and the interface outlet (outlet at porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 68, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) is located in a head of the patient interface (see Figs. 1-2, the stiffening member 18 extends to attachment member 15 and porous body 3 such that it can be considered in a distal head/end of the patient interface).
Regarding claim 69, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4, wherein a direction of the gas flow path (gas flow path through device of Figs. 1-2) is determined by the at least one bending direction (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 determines the bending direction of first conduit portion and thus the direction of the gas flow path).
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.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (US 2005/0119607 A1, hereinafter referred to as "Van Der Linden '607"), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Blacklock (US 2021/0369986 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4. However, Van Der Linden '607 fails to state a removal tab.
Blacklock teaches a patient interface (see Figs. 1-5) comprising a removal tab (see par. [0032], adhesive surfaces on the patient interface can be covered with a release paper before use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient interface of Van Der Linden '607 to include a removal tab, as taught by Blacklock, in order to accommodate adhesives which can removably adhere the patient interface to the surgical site during use and thus can be covered with the removal tab prior to use (see Blacklock par. [0032]).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (US 2005/0119607 A1, hereinafter referred to as "Van Der Linden '607"), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Van Der Linden (US 2013/0226074 A1, hereinafter referred to as "Van Der Linden '074").
Regarding claim 67, Van Der Linden '607 discloses the patient interface of claim 4. However, Van Der Linden '607 fails to state wherein the at least one deformable element is located within the gas permeable substrate.
Van Der Linden '074 teaches a patient interface (see Figs. 1-2) wherein the at least one deformable element (stiffening member 14) is located within the gas permeable substrate (body 5) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0035], [0050]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient interface of Van Der Linden '607 such that the at least one deformable element extends into the gas permeable substrate, as taught by Van Der Linden '074, in order to allow the gas permeable substrate to better conform to the shape of the particular surgical site (see Van Der Linden '074 par. [0050]-[0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Van Der Linden ‘607 fails to teach the limitation “wherein the one or more enclosing layers is configured to direct the gases to exit the gas flow path of the patient interface only via the second end of the patient interface” because the foam material of porous body 3 distributes the gas uniformly over its surface rather than directing the gases to flow only through the second end and because the heparin coating of the porous body does not define the gas flow path and/or direct the flow of gas. These arguments are not found to be persuasive. The “second end” of Van Der Linden ‘607 is the distal end of the device of Figs. 1-2 nearest the porous body 3 and paragraph [0031] establishes that a heparin coating can be applied onto the porous body 3. Gases enter the device from the gas source 2 and only exit the device from the porous body 3 and thus would pass through the heparin coating of porous body 3 prior to being delivered into the surgical cavity (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0021], [0031]). The heparin coating allows gases to flow out of the porous body 3 and gases are only directed out of the gas flow path of the device at the porous body 3 including the heparin coating; therefore, Van Der Linden ‘607 teaches the limitation “wherein the one or more enclosing layers is configured to direct the gases to exit the gas flow path of the patient interface only via the second end of the patient interface” as recited in claim 1.
In regards to independent claim 2, Applicant argues that Van Der Linden ‘607 fails to teach the limitation “wherein the deformable element is configured to be deformed to bend the gas flow path and allow a distal section of the patient interface to be bent across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet and the interface outlet into a bent shape corresponding to the surgical cavity and to retain the bent shape” because the stiffening member 18 is in the supply conduit 1, not a distal section of the patient interface. This argument is not found to be persuasive. The stiffening member 18 is bendable to allow a distal section (see Figs. 1-2, the section including and distal to first conduit portion 1’ can be considered a distal section of the device of Figs. 1-2) to be bent across the longitudinal direction between inlet at the connection to gas source 2 and the outlet at porous body 3 (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]). The limitation “a distal section” as recited in the claim can include the first conduit portion 1’ and the stiffening member 18 (and the structures distal to 1’/18) because 1’/18 (and the structures distal to 1’/18) are more distal relative to other portions of the device, especially elements 10/1”/7/8/9/4/2. Therefore, Van Der Linden ‘607 teaches the limitation “wherein the deformable element is configured to be deformed to bend the gas flow path and allow a distal section of the patient interface to be bent across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet and the interface outlet into a bent shape corresponding to the surgical cavity and to retain the bent shape” as recited in claim 2.
In regards to independent claim 4, Applicant argues that Van Der Linden ‘607 fails to teach the limitation “at least one deformable element disposed within the formable section, the at least one deformable element forming at least one bending direction for the formable section” because stiffening member 18 is part of the supply conduit 1, not porous body 3. This argument is not found to be persuasive. Van Der Linden ‘607 teaches “a formable section” which can be considered the section of the device from the proximal end of the first conduit portion 1’ to the distal end of the porous body 3. This “formable section” comprises a gas permeable substrate (foam body of porous body 3, see par. [0012], [0025], [0021]) enclosed by the one or more enclosing layers (heparin coating on porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0012], [0021], [0025], [0031]); and at least one deformable element (stiffening member 18) disposed within the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]). The at least one deformable element (stiffening member 18) forms at least one bending direction for the formable section (section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027], stiffening member 18 is located within the section of the device from the proximal end of the first conduit portion 1’ to the distal end of the porous body 3 and allows the section of the device from the proximal end of the first conduit portion 1’ to the distal end of the porous body 3 to be bent and retained into a selectable shape). Therefore, Van Der Linden ‘607 teaches the limitation “at least one deformable element disposed within the formable section, the at least one deformable element forming at least one bending direction for the formable section” as recited in claim 4. Applicant additionally argues the same argument applied to claim 1 above that the heparin coating of the porous body 3 should not be considered “one or more enclosing layers” as claimed. This argument is not found persuasive for the same reasons described in the Examiner’s response to the arguments for claim 1 above. Applicant additionally argues that a combination of Van Der Linden ‘607 and Van Der Linden ‘074 would not teach the limitations of claim 4. However, these arguments are moot because the rejection of claim 4 above does not rely upon a combination of Van Der Linden ‘607 and Van Der Linden ‘074. The Examiner interprets that Van Der Linden ‘607 alone anticipates each and every limitation of claim 4 as described in the rejection of claim 4 and the response to arguments regarding claim 4 above.
In regards to independent claim 62, Applicant argues that Van Der Linden ‘607 fails to teach the limitation “bending a deformable element to bend the gas flow path and a distal-most section of the patient interface across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet and the interface outlet” because the stiffening member 18 is in the supply conduit 1, not a distal-most section of the patient interface. This argument is not found to be persuasive. The stiffening member 18 is bendable to allow a distal-most section (see Figs. 1-2, the section of device from proximal end of first conduit portion 1’ to distal end of porous body 3 can be considered the distal-most section of the device of Figs. 1-2) to be bent across the longitudinal direction between the inlet at the connection to gas source 2 and the outlet at porous body 3 (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0027]). The limitation “a distal-most section” as recited in the claim can include the first conduit portion 1’, the stiffening member 18, and every structure of the device distal to 1’/18, because the combination of the first conduit portion 1’, the stiffening member 18, and every structure of the device distal to 1’/18 is the most distal portion of the device, especially relative to elements 10/1”/7/8/9/4/2. Therefore, Van Der Linden ‘607 teaches the limitation “bending a deformable element to bend the gas flow path and a distal-most section of the patient interface across the longitudinal direction between the interface inlet and the interface outlet” as recited in claim 62. Applicant additionally argues the same argument applied to claim 1 above that the heparin coating of the porous body 3 should not be considered “one or more enclosing layers” as claimed. This argument is not found persuasive for the same reasons described in the Examiner’s response to the arguments for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights