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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 5-6, “than the coating” should be amended to read -- as the coating-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 14, line 4, “a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic” should be amended to read --a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank-- to correct a typographical error.
In claim 17, line 14, “a dipping bath” should be amended to read --[[a]] the dipping bath-- to correct a typographical error.
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:
“feed device” in claim 14, interpreted in accordance with paragraph [0061]
“refill unit” in claims 1, 9, 14, 17, 19, and 20, interpreted in accordance with [0009]
“fluid delivery unit” in claim 16 interpreted in accordance with paragraph [0037]
“visual inspection unit” in claims 3-5 and 10-12, interpreted in accordance with paragraph [0024]
“patient-side coupling unit” in claim 16, interpreted in accordance with paragraph [0050]
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 § 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 4, 14-16 and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the feed unit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed “the feed unit” is referring to “the feed device” of line 8.
Claim 18 recites "the two coatings" in line 2. It is not expressly clear whether this limitation is referring to the face that the coating of claim 17 is formed on both the inner and outer surfaces or if a second different coating is being introduced. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read --the coating on the inner surface and the coating on the outer surface-- to clarify.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected based solely on their dependency to rejected claims.
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 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 1-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlop (WO 2020/0146919), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300).
As to claim 1, Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container (bucket 3, Fig. 2) for use in an anesthetic dispenser 1 (Fig. 2), the anesthetic container 3 comprising: an anesthetic tank 3 for receiving a liquid anesthetic (pg. 6, ln. 15-21), the anesthetic tank 3 comprising a wall 3 with an inner surface and a coating on the inner surface (page 6, ln. 15-21: internal reservoir is nickel coated), the inner surface pointing toward a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank 3 (page 6, ln. 15-21: modern anesthetics such as halothane and isoflurane); and a refill unit 2 for refilling liquid anesthetic into the anesthetic tank (pg. 6, ln. 15: filler 2, Fig. 2), wherein the coating of the anesthetic tank comprises a nickel portion (pg. 6, ln. 19-21: nickel coating material delivered by the electroless process).
Dunlop lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the nickel coating is an alloy with a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight %, and a phosphorus portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight %.
However, Zdunek teaches a container for highly corrosive liquified gases, such as halogenated gases, which includes a coating of nickel alloy, the nickel alloy having a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight % and a phosphorous portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight % (paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10% by weight of phosphorous; the rest being nickel and only trace amounts of other elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coating of Dunlop to include a phosphorous portion in the claimed range, as taught by Zdunek, in order to provide a container that is more corrosion resistant to the halogenated anesthetic gases.
As to claim 2, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 1, wherein the range of the phosphorus portion is 10 weight % to 13 weight % (see Zdunek paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10%).
As to claim 3, modified Dunlop discloses the anesthetic container in accordance with claim 1, further comprising a visual inspection unit (fluid level sight glass 20at elongate void 39, Figs. 2-3) configured to provide a visible fill level of liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank 3 from outside the anesthetic tank 3 through the visual inspection unit (pg. 7, ln. 14-15; pg. 8, ln. 21-27).
As to claim 9, modified Dunlop discloses the anesthetic container in accordance with claim 1, wherein the refill unit 2 comprises: a refill unit wall (body of filler 2); and a coating on an inner surface of the refill unit wall (pg. 6, ln. 22-23: body of filler 2 is preferably made of solid brass and nickel coated), wherein the refill unit wall 2 is connected in a fluid-tight manner to the wall 5 of the anesthetic tank 3 (pg. 6, ln. 24 – pg. 7, ln. 2: concave mounting surface 12 of filler 2 abuts against the outer surface 5 of bucket 3 via a thin sheet gasket (seal) 4, Figs. 2-6), and wherein a refill unit wall coating of the wall of the refill unit 2 comprises a same material as or is made of the same material than the coating of the anesthetic tank 3 (pg. 6, ln. 15-21: internal reservoir of bucket 3 is nickel coated; pg. 6, ln. 22-23: body of filler 2 is nickel coated).
Claims 4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlop (WO 2020/0146919), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Loxley et al. (US 6,012,304).
As to claim 4, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 3, wherein the visual inspection unit comprises a transparent material (fluid level sight glass 20 at elongate void 39, Figs. 2-3, pg. 7, ln. 14-15; pg. 8, ln. 21-27), but does not expressly disclose that the transparent material includes a quartz portion of at least 70 weight %, preferably a quartz portion of at least 80 weight %.
However, Loxley teaches a transparent glass material (Abstract) which includes a quartz portion of at least 70 weight % (col. 12, ln. 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sight glass of Dunlop so that the transparent material is at least 70 weight % quartz, as taught by Loxley, in order to provide a suitable material choice which is essentially bubble free (Abstract).
As to claim 10, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 3, wherein the visual inspection unit comprises a transparent material (fluid level sight glass 20 at elongate void 39, Figs. 2-3, pg. 7, ln. 14-15; pg. 8, ln. 21-27), but does not expressly disclose that the transparent material includes a quartz portion of at least 80 weight %.
However, Loxley teaches a transparent glass material (Abstract) which includes a quartz portion of at least 80 weight % (col. 12, ln. 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sight glass of Dunlop so that the transparent material is at least 80 weight % quartz, as taught by Loxley, in order to provide a suitable material choice which is essentially bubble free (Abstract).
As to claim 11, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 3, wherein the visual inspection unit comprises a transparent material (fluid level sight glass 20 at elongate void 39, Figs. 2-3, pg. 7, ln. 14-15; pg. 8, ln. 21-27), but does not expressly disclose that the transparent material includes a quartz portion of at least 90 weight %.
However, Loxley teaches a transparent glass material (Abstract) which includes a quartz portion of at least 90 weight % (col. 12, ln. 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sight glass of Dunlop so that the transparent material is at least 90 weight % quartz, as taught by Loxley, in order to provide a suitable material choice which is essentially bubble free (Abstract).
As to claim 12, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 3, wherein the visual inspection unit comprises a transparent material (fluid level sight glass 20 at elongate void 39, Figs. 2-3, pg. 7, ln. 14-15; pg. 8, ln. 21-27), but does not expressly disclose that the transparent material includes a quartz portion of at least 99 weight %.
However, Loxley teaches a transparent glass material (Abstract) which includes a quartz portion of at least 99 weight % (col. 12, ln. 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sight glass of Dunlop so that the transparent material is at least 99 weight % quartz, as taught by Loxley, in order to provide a suitable material choice which is essentially bubble free (Abstract).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlop (WO 2020/0146919), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Armstrong (US 2008/0080080).
As to claim 5, modified Dunlop discloses an anesthetic container in accordance with claim 3, but does not expressly disclose a transparent coating comprising a plastic applied to an inner surface of the visual inspection unit.
However, Armstrong teaches visual inspection unit (paragraph [0014]: sight glass assembly includes body 42 of transparent material, see Fig. 1) which includes a transparent plastic coating applied to an inner surface 50 of the visual inspection unit 42 (paragraph [0031]: a layer of high-density polyethylene or fluorinated ethylene propylene may be sprayed or otherwise deposited onto the interior surface 50 of body 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sight glass of Dunlop to include a transparent plastic coating on the inner surface, as taught by Armstrong, in order to provide a chemically resistant barrier between the sight glass window material and the liquified gas from the container.
As to claim 6, modified Dunlop discloses the anesthetic container in accordance with claim 5, wherein the plastic of the transparent coating comprises: a parylene; or a polymer; or a transparent polytetrafluoroethylene; or a polyolefin; or any combination of a parylene, and a polymer, and a transparent polytetrafluoroethylene, and a polyolefin (polymer, paragraph [0031]).
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed (WO 2010/129796), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300).
As to claim 1, Freed discloses an anesthetic container 50 (Fig. 1) for use in an anesthetic dispenser, the anesthetic container 50 comprising: an anesthetic tank (receptacle 52) for receiving a liquid anesthetic (paragraph [0021]: the receptacle may hold a halogenated anesthetic selected from the group consisting of sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, enflurane, methoxyflurane and halothane; all of these halogenated anesthetics may be liquids under ambient conditions), the anesthetic tank 52 comprising a wall 54 with an inner surface and a coating 70 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) on the inner surface 82, the inner surface 82 pointing toward a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank 52 (paragraph [0024]: the wall 54 may include a layer 70 of nickel or nickel alloy on a surface 82 facing the interior 56 of the receptacle 52); and a refill unit (neck 58 with passage 60, Fig. 1) for refilling liquid anesthetic into the anesthetic tank 52 (paragraph [0023]), wherein the coating 70 of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises an alloy with a nickel portion (paragraph [0024]: layer 70 of nickel alloy facing interior 56 of receptacle 52).
Freed lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the nickel alloy with a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight %, and a phosphorus portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight %.
However, Zdunek teaches a container for highly corrosive liquified gases, such as halogenated gases, which includes a coating of nickel alloy, the nickel alloy having a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight % and a phosphorous portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight % (paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10% by weight of phosphorous; the rest being nickel and only trace amounts of other elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nickel alloy coating of Freed to instead be the alloy of nickel and phosphorous, as taught by Zdunek, in order to provide a container that is more corrosion resistant to the halogenated anesthetic gases.
As to claim 14, Freed discloses an anesthetic dispenser (Fig. 1) comprising: an anesthetic container 50 comprising: an anesthetic tank (receptacle 52) for receiving a liquid anesthetic (paragraph [0021]: the receptacle may hold a halogenated anesthetic selected from the group consisting of sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, enflurane, methoxyflurane and halothane; all of these halogenated anesthetics may be liquids under ambient conditions), the anesthetic tank 52 comprising a wall 54 with an inner surface and a coating 70 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) on the inner surface 82, the inner surface 82 pointing toward a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank (paragraph [0024]: the wall 54 may include a layer 70 of nickel or nickel alloy on a surface 82 facing the interior 56 of the receptacle 52); and a refill unit (neck 58 with passage 60, Fig. 1) for refilling liquid anesthetic into the anesthetic tank 52 (paragraph [0023]), wherein the coating 70 of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises an alloy with a nickel portion (paragraph [0024]: layer 70 of nickel alloy facing interior 56 of receptacle 52), a feed device (valve assembly) configured to be in a fluid connection with the anesthetic container 50; and an anesthetic vaporizer, wherein the feed device is configured to feed liquid anesthetic from the anesthetic container 50 into the anesthetic vaporizer, and wherein the anesthetic vaporizer is configured to generate gaseous anesthetic with the use of the liquid anesthetic fed in by the feed unit (paragraph [0002]: the container is mated with a port on the vaporizer, and the liquid is transferred from an interior chamber of the container to a reservoir in the vaporizer; paragraph [0036]: a suitable valve assembly would alternatively close to minimize loss of anesthetic from the container and open (by way of interaction with the vaporizer port, for example) to permit anesthetic to transfer from the container to another receptacle or a device, such as a vaporizer).
Freed lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the nickel alloy with a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight %, and a phosphorus portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight %.
However, Zdunek teaches a container for highly corrosive liquified gases, such as halogenated gases, which includes a coating of nickel alloy, the nickel alloy having a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight % and a phosphorous portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight % (paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10% by weight of phosphorous; the rest being nickel and only trace amounts of other elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nickel alloy coating of Freed to instead be the alloy of nickel and phosphorous, as taught by Zdunek, in order to provide a container that is more corrosion resistant to the halogenated anesthetic gases.
As to claim 15, modified Freed discloses an anesthetic dispenser in accordance with claim 14, in combination with a gas mixer to form a gas mixture generator, wherein the gas mixer is configured to be in a fluid connection with the anesthetic dispenser, wherein the gas mixer is configured to generate a gas mixture comprising oxygen and at least one gaseous anesthetic, wherein the gaseous anesthetic is generated by the anesthetic dispenser (paragraph [0002] discloses “the container is mated with a port on the vaporizer, and the liquid is transferred from an interior chamber of the container to a reservoir in the vaporizer…the liquid anesthetic is then vaporized and mixed with oxygen (and optionally other gases). The gaseous mixture may then be administered to the patient” Thus, the system must include a gas mixer (space where the vaporized anesthetic is mixed with the oxygen gas) in fluid connection with the anesthetic dispenser either within the vaporizer or downstream thereof).
As to claim 17, Freed discloses a process for manufacturing an anesthetic container 50 (Fig. 1), the anesthetic container 50 comprising: an anesthetic tank (receptacle 52) for receiving a liquid anesthetic (paragraph [0021]: the receptacle may hold a halogenated anesthetic selected from the group consisting of sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, enflurane, methoxyflurane and halothane; all of these halogenated anesthetics may be liquids under ambient conditions), the anesthetic tank 52 comprising a wall 54 with an inner surface and a coating 70 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) on the inner surface 82, the inner surface 82 pointing toward a liquid anesthetic in the anesthetic tank (paragraph [0024]: the wall 54 may include a layer 70 of nickel or nickel alloy on a surface 82 facing the interior 56 of the receptacle 52); and a refill unit (neck 58 with passage 60, Fig. 1) for refilling liquid anesthetic into the anesthetic tank 52 (paragraph [0023]), wherein the coating 70 of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises an alloy with a nickel portion (paragraph [0024]: layer 70 of nickel alloy facing interior 56 of receptacle 52), and wherein the process comprises the steps of: manufacturing the wall 54 of the anesthetic tank 52; and providing the nickel alloy to the wall of the anesthetic tank 52 (paragraph [0026]: the layer 70 may be disposed on the layer 80 after the layer 80 has been shaped to define the receptacle 52) on both sides of the wall (see Fig. 3, paragraph [0024]: the layer 70 may be disposed on both surfaces of the layer 80).
Freed lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the nickel alloy with a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight %, and a phosphorus portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight %, wherein a lower threshold is predefined for a layer thickness of the coating on the inner surface of the anesthetic tank and a pH value is predefined as a function of the predefined range for the phosphorus portion in the coating on the inner surface.
Freed further lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the process of applying the coating comprises the steps of: providing a dipping bath with a liquid containing nickel and phosphorus, wherein the liquid has the predefined pH value, moving the wall in to a dipping bath; wherein the liquid in the dipping bath encloses the wall after the movement; and leaving the wall in the dipping bath, so that a coating is formed on the sides of the wall and leaving the wall in the dipping bath until at least the coating on the inner surface of the wall reaches a wall thickness that is greater than or equal to the predefined lower threshold for the layer thickness.
However, Zdunek teaches a container for highly corrosive liquified gases (gas cylinder 12, Fig. 1), such as halogenated gases, which includes a coating of nickel alloy, the nickel alloy having a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight % and a phosphorous portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight % (paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10% by weight of phosphorous; the rest being nickel and only trace amounts of other elements), wherein a lower threshold is predefined for a layer thickness of the coating on the inner surface of the anesthetic tank (paragraph [0018]: the internal surfaces of at least gas cylinder 12 are coated with an electroless nickel-phosphorous layer having a thickness of at least about 20 micrometers) and a pH value is predefined as a function of the predefined range for the phosphorus portion in the coating on the inner surface (paragraph [0033]: pH is maintained within a range of about 4 to 5).
Zdunek further teaches that the process for applying the nickel-phosphorous coating to the container (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]) comprises the steps of: providing a dipping bath with a liquid containing nickel and phosphorus (paragraph [0033]: plating process is carried out in a bath containing nickel sulfate, sodium hypophosphite, etc.), wherein the liquid has the predefined pH value (paragraph [0033]: pH is maintained within a range of 4 to 5), moving the wall in to a dipping bath; wherein the liquid in the dipping bath encloses the wall after the movement (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]: cylinder 12 is placed in the plating bath); and leaving the wall in the dipping bath, so that a coating is formed (paragraph [0032]: the plating solution is pumped into the cylinder 12 standing in the plating bath) and leaving the wall in the dipping bath until at least the coating on the inner surface of the wall reaches a wall thickness that is greater than or equal to the predefined lower threshold for the layer thickness (paragraph [0033]: the deposition thickness is controlled by the residence time of the gas cylinder 12 in the plating bath; the actual residence time necessary to deposit nickel-phosphorous layer 30 to the preferred thickness ranges set forth above depends upon the particular deposition rate of the plating bath; in a typical plating process carried out in accordance with the parameters above, a plating rate of about 7 to about 25 micrometers per hour can be achieved; paragraph [0018]: the internal surfaces of at least gas cylinder 12 are coated with an electroless nickel-phosphorous layer having a thickness of at least about 20 micrometers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nickel alloy coating of Freed to instead be an alloy of nickel and phosphorous applied by the process taught by Zdunek, in order to provide a container that is more corrosion resistant to the halogenated anesthetic gases.
As to claim 18, modified Freed discloses the process in accordance with claim 17, wherein an electroless nickel plating process is used during the step of leaving the wall in the dipping bath, so that the two coatings are formed (see Zdunek, paragraph [0032]-[0033]; see also, Freed, paragraph [0024]: the layer 70 may be disposed on both surfaces of the layer 80).
As to claim 19, modified Feed discloses the process in accordance with claim 17 wherein: the refill unit (neck 58 with passage 60, Fig. 1 of Zdunek) comprises: a refill unit wall (neck portion 58 of wall 54); and a coating 70 on an inner surface of the refill unit wall 54/58 (Zdunek, Fig. 1, paragraph [0025]: layer 70 may be a continuous layer disposed facing the entire interior 56 of the receptacle 52; see Zdunek, Fig. 3, paragraph [0024]: may be on both surfaces of layer 80 of wall 54 see Fig. 3), wherein a refill unit wall coating of the wall of the refill unit comprises a same material as or is made of the same material 70 than the coating of the anesthetic tank 52 (see Zdunek, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs: [0024]-[0025]: entire interior includes nickel alloy layer 70); and a part comprising the wall of the anesthetic tank 3 and the wall of the refill unit 2 is manufactured such that the two walls 54,58 are connected to one another in a fluid-tight manner (the wall 54 of receptacle 52 is integral with the neck 58, see Fig. 1), the part 52 is moved into the dipping bath, and the part 52 is left in the dipping bath until at least the coating on the inner surface of the two walls has reached a wall thickness that is greater than or equal to the predefined lower threshold for the layer thickness (as taught by Zdunek, paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and paragraph [0018]).
As to claim 20, Freed discloses a process for manufacturing an anesthetic container 50 (Fig. 1), comprising the process steps of: providing an anesthetic container 50 (Fig. 1) comprising an anesthetic tank (receptacle 52) for receiving a liquid anesthetic (paragraph [0021]: the receptacle may hold a halogenated anesthetic selected from the group consisting of sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, enflurane, methoxyflurane and halothane; all of these halogenated anesthetics may be liquids under ambient conditions), the anesthetic tank 52 comprising a wall 54 with an inner surface 56 and a coating 70 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) on the inner surface 82 pointing toward a liquid anesthetic space (paragraph [0024]: the wall 54 may include a layer 70 of nickel or nickel alloy on a surface 82 facing the interior 56 of the receptacle 52); and a refill unit (neck 58 with passage 60, Fig. 1) for refilling liquid anesthetic into the anesthetic tank 52, wherein the coating 70 of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises an alloy with a nickel content (paragraph [0024]: layer 70 of nickel alloy facing interior 56 of receptacle 52).
Freed lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the nickel alloy with a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight %, and a phosphorus portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight %.
However, Zdunek teaches a container for highly corrosive liquified gases, such as halogenated gases, which includes a coating of nickel alloy, the nickel alloy having a nickel portion in a range of 80 weight % to 97 weight % and a phosphorous portion in a range of 3 weight % to 15 weight % (paragraph [0025]: 1% by weight to about 15% by weight phosphorous, preferably at least 10% by weight of phosphorous; the rest being nickel and only trace amounts of other elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nickel alloy coating of Freed to instead be the alloy of nickel and phosphorous, as taught by Zdunek, in order to provide a container that is more corrosion resistant to the halogenated anesthetic gases.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed (WO 2010/129796), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawtell et al. (US 2113/0334091).
As to claim 7, modified Freed discloses the anesthetic container in accordance with claim 1, wherein the wall 80 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises at least one metal alloy with an aluminum portion (paragraph [0024]), but lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the aluminum portion of the alloy is at least 80 weight %.
However, Sawtell teaches an aluminum alloy for producing a container wherein the aluminum portion is at least 80 weight % (see Table 1 in paragraph [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Freed so that the aluminum alloy is one having at least 80 weight % aluminum, as taught by Sawtell, in order to provide a suitable container material which has desirable properties of strength, toughness and resistance to corrosion and fatigue crack growth, see Sawtell paragraph [0002]).
As to claim 13, modified Feed discloses the anesthetic container in accordance with claim 1, wherein the wall (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) of the anesthetic tank 52 comprises at least one metal alloy with an aluminum portion (paragraph [0024]), but lacks detailed description as to the limitation that the aluminum portion of the alloy is at least 95 weight %.
However, Sawtell teaches an aluminum alloy for producing a container wherein the aluminum portion is at least 95 weight % (see Table 1 in paragraph [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the container of Freed so that the aluminum alloy is one having at least 95 weight % aluminum, as taught by Sawtell, in order to provide a suitable container material which has desirable properties of strength, toughness and resistance to corrosion and fatigue crack growth, see Sawtell paragraph [0002]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed (WO 2010/129796), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 2014/0166527).
As to claim 8, modified Freed discloses an anesthetic container in accordance claim 1, wherein the wall of the anesthetic tank comprises plastic (paragraph [0027]), but does not disclose that the plastic comprises at least one of: a polyamide; or a polyphenylene sulfide; or a polyether ether ketone.
However, Ye teaches an anesthetic container 12 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0022]) comprising a plastic, the plastic comprising a polyamide (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plastic container material of Freed to be a plastic comprising polyamide, as taught by Ye, in order to provide a suitable alternative known material choice which minimizes the potential for breakage of the container and/or degradation of the anesthetic (paragraph [0025]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed (WO 2010/129796), in view of Zdunek et al. (US 2001/0017300), as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Keitel et al. (US 6,216,690).
As to claim 16, modified Freed discloses an anesthetic dispenser in combination with a gas mixer to form a gas mixture generator according to claim 15, but lacks detailed description as to a ventilation system for the mechanical ventilation of a patient, wherein the patient is connected or connectable to a patient-side coupling unit, wherein a fluid connection is established or establishable between the ventilation system and the patient-side coupling unit, wherein a fluid delivery unit is configured to deliver the gas mixture through the fluid connection to the patient-side coupling unit.
However, Keitel teaches a ventilation system 14 (Fig.1) for the mechanical ventilation of a patient 60 in combination with an anesthetic dispenser (agent vaporizer 22) and a gas mixer (mixing tee 30, col. 6, ln. 20-37), wherein the patient 60 is connected or connectable to a patient-side coupling unit (at Y-section 62), wherein a fluid connection (supply tubing 44) is established or establishable between the ventilation system 14 and the patient-side coupling unit 62, wherein a fluid delivery unit (ventilator 46) is configured to deliver the gas mixture through the fluid connection 44 to the patient-side coupling unit 62 (see Fig. 1, col. 6,ln. 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Freed to include a ventilation system between the vaporizer and the patient, as taught by Keitel, in order to provide a suitable means for delivering the mixture of anesthetic and breathing gases to the patient in a controllable manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuda (US 4,636,255) discloses an electroless plating bath for forming a nickel-phosphorus alloy coating having a high phosphorus content.
Loser et al. (US 2002/0069876) discloses an arrangement for supplying a medical apparatus with anesthetic.
Warby (US 2016/0361514) discloses an anesthetic container having a dispensing valve that couples to an anaesthetic machine having a vaporiser unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785