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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
4 foreign documents from the 04/28/2023 IDS and 1 foreign document from the 04/30/2024 IDS have not been considered because no translation of at least the abstract has been provided.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). 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 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: in ln 1 “pipeline and (New) The nasal” should read ---pipeline and the nasal---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reinforcing structure” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-22 and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trimble (US 4,782,832 A).
Regarding claim 14, Trimble discloses a nasal plug for a nasal oxygen catheter (abstract, col 1 ln 12-16 discloses oxygen delivery), comprising a body, which comprises a casing (#54 fig 9) and a cavity (see Trimble annotated fig 9 below) positioned in the casing, and is provided with at least one gas outlet (#65 fig 9), wherein the nasal plug further comprises a stop structure (#68, 72, 70, 58 fig 9, although the structure is not disclosed as a “stop structure” due to similar construction it is seen that the component is capable of performing the function of a “stop structure”) that surrounds the at least one gas outlet and extends from an inner wall of the casing toward the cavity (see fig 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Trimble annotated fig 9
Regarding claim 15, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 14. Trimble further discloses a reinforcing structure is formed on the stop structure (#68, 72 fig 9).
Regarding claim 16, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses the reinforcing structure comprises reinforcing ribs (#68 fig 9, outer structural ribs to provide differing orientation).
Regarding claim 17, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses the reinforcing structure comprises a flanged edge, which is folded and extends towards the outside of the gas outlet (#72 fig 9, bulbous outward flanging).
Regarding claim 18, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 14. Trimble further discloses the stop structure comprises a first end connected to the casing and a second end extending into the cavity (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above), and an inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the gas outlet (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 19, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses the stop structure comprises a first end connected to the casing and a second end extending into the cavity (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above), and an inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the gas outlet (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 20, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 16. Trimble further discloses the stop structure comprises a first end connected to the casing and a second end extending into the cavity (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above), and an inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the gas outlet (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 21, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 17. Trimble further discloses the stop structure comprises a first end connected to the casing and a second end extending into the cavity (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above), and an inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the gas outlet (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 22, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 18. Trimble further discloses the inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the first end (see Trimble annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 25, Claim 18 is rejected as Trimble disclosing the stop structure comprises a first end connected to the casing and a second end extending into the cavity, and an inner diameter of the second end is greater than that of the gas outlet (see Trimble annotated fig 9 – version 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Trimble annotated fig 9 – version 2
Trimble further discloses one part of the first end extends from an edge of the gas outlet (inner wall side, see Trimble annotated fig 9 – version 2 above), and another part of the first end is arranged spaced apart from the edge of the gas outlet (outer wall side see Trimble annotated fig 9 – version 2 above).
Regarding claim 26, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 14. Trimble further discloses the stop structure is a stop ring (see fig 8 showing the stop structure having a round ringed shape).
Regarding claim 27, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses the stop structure is a stop ring (see fig 8 showing the stop structure having a round ringed shape).
Regarding claim 28, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 14. Trimble further discloses the nasal plug comprises at least two gas outlets (see fig 9 showing two nasal plugs/outlets), and the stop structure surrounds all the gas outlets on the nasal plug (see fig 9 showing a stop structure around each outlet).
Regarding claim 29, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses the nasal plug comprises at least two gas outlets (see fig 9 showing two nasal plugs/outlets), and the stop structure surrounds all the gas outlets on the nasal plug (see fig 9 showing a stop structure around each outlet).
Regarding claim 30, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 14. Trimble further discloses one end of the cavity is formed as a gas inlet end (end connected to #52 fig 5, 6, 9), and the other end is formed as a closed end (see Trimble annotated fig 5 below), and a connecting structure (#52 fig 5, 6, 9) for connecting with a ventilation pipeline is formed on a side of the casing corresponding to the gas inlet end (see fig 1 showing a ventilation pipeline being connected to inlet component/connecting structure).
PNG
media_image3.png
269
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Trimble annotated fig 5
Regarding claim 31, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 15. Trimble further discloses one end of the cavity is formed as a gas inlet end (end connected to #52 fig 5, 6, 9), and the other end is formed as a closed end (see Trimble annotated fig 5 above), and a connecting structure (#52 fig 5, 6, 9) for connecting with a ventilation pipeline is formed on a side of the casing corresponding to the gas inlet end (see fig 1 showing a ventilation pipeline being connected to inlet component/connecting structure).
Regarding claim 32, Trimble discloses a nasal oxygen catheter (abstract, col 1 ln 12-16 discloses oxygen delivery), comprising a ventilation pipeline (#24 fig 1) and the nasal plug of claim 14 (see claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 33, Trimble discloses a ventilation therapy device (abstract), comprising the nasal oxygen catheter of claim 32 (see claim 32 above).
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.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trimble as applied to claims 18 and 22 above, and further in view of Davidson (US 2006/0237017 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 18. Trimble is silent to the inner diameter of the first end is greater than that of the gas outlet. Trimble instead discloses the first end being flush in size with the outlet (see fig 9).
Davidson teaches a nasal plug (see fig 43-44) comprising an outlet (#17 fig 44) and a stop structure (#120 fig 44), wherein the inner diameter of the stop structure is greater than that of the gas outlet (see fig 44 showing the outlet fitting inside the stop structure thus showing a greater inner diameter of the stop structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an outlet smaller than the stop structure first end as taught by Davidson for the first end/connection between the stop structure and the nasal prong of Trimble as doing so provides increased flexibility facilitating movement of the nasal prongs (par 0110).
Regarding claim 24, Trimble discloses the nasal plug of claim 22. Trimble is silent to the inner diameter of the first end is greater than that of the gas outlet. Trimble instead discloses the first end being flush in size with the outlet (see fig 9).
Davidson teaches a nasal plug (see fig 43-44) comprising an outlet (#17 fig 44) and a stop structure (#120 fig 44), wherein the inner diameter of the stop structure is greater than that of the gas outlet (see fig 44 showing the outlet fitting inside the stop structure thus showing a greater inner diameter of the stop structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an outlet smaller than the stop structure first end as taught by Davidson for the first end/connection between the stop structure and the nasal prong of Trimble as doing so provides increased flexibility facilitating movement of the nasal prongs (par 0110).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190275278 A1 (see fig 1A #137)
US 20220409839 A1
US 20040226566 A1
US 20070125387 A1
US 20070272249 A1 (see specifically fig 38)
US 20100252044 A1
US 20160051787 A1 disclosing ribbing (see fig 6, 7)
US 20190070441 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRA B DAHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/KIRA B DAHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799