DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 12/31/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-11 were canceled, claims 12, 16-17, 19, and 21 were amended, and claims 23-25 were newly added. Thus, claims 12-25 are presently pending in this application.
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 18, 20, and 25 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 18 line 1, the term “a respiratory therapy system” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a respiratory therapy system” of claim 12 line 1.
Regarding claim 20 line 1, the term “the magnetic elements” is unclear as to if the term is referring to “a plurality of ring-shaped magnetic elements” of claim 19 line 3-4 or “a first magnetic element” and “an adjacent one of said magnetic elements” of claim 19 line 5-6, or another term.
Regarding claim 25 line 1-2, the term “the patient” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hocking et al. (US 2019/0175863; hereinafter “Hocking”).
Regarding claim 19, Hocking discloses an air circuit for a respiratory therapy system (see Hocking [0003] respiratory interface to provide gas, such as air, in CPAP, high flow rate, etc. therapies), the air circuit comprising a conduit (see Hocking [0175] “With reference to FIGS. 23 to 26, a magnetic system according to another embodiment that is adapted to be incorporated into a conduit”, such as conduit 115), wherein at least a portion of the conduit is collapsible and/or compressible in an axial direction (see Hocking [0175] “The conduit may stretch, fold, or gather between the longer and shorter lengths”; Fig. 23 shows how helical shapes magnets 801, 803 assist in the collapsing of the conduit in an axial direction), the air circuit further comprising a plurality of ring-shaped magnetic elements that are unconnected to each other and spaced axially along the collapsible and/or compressible portion (see Hocking Fig. 23 helical shaped magnets 801, 803 [corresponding to Fig. 18 magnets 701, 703] is a pair of magnets. As shown in Fig. 25 the magnets 801, 803 are separate components and are thus “unconnected” to each other prior to and during placement within the conduit. As shown in Fig. 23, the magnets 801, 803 have axial spacing between them in the gaps formed between the two spirals. As for the ring-shape, magnets 801, 803 qualify as ring shaped given they are shaped as a spiral or helix, and additionally the top down view of a helix is ring shaped.), wherein a first magnetic element of said magnetic elements is configured to attract an adjacent one of said magnetic elements when the first magnetic element and the adjacent magnetic element are less than a predetermined distance apart (see Hocking Figs. 24-25 adjacent surfaces 805 attracted to each other to compress conduit using attraction between surfaces 805 of helical magnets 801, 803).
Regarding claim 20, Hocking discloses the magnetic elements are embedded in a wall of the conduit (see Hocking [0176] relating the helical magnets in Fig. 23-26 “the particulate magnetic material may be integrally formed with the enclosed wall”).
Regarding claim 21, Hocking discloses an air circuit for a respiratory therapy system (see Hocking [0003] respiratory interface to provide gas, such as air, in CPAP, high flow rate, etc. therapies), the air circuit comprising:
a flexible conduit (see Hocking [0175] “With reference to FIGS. 23 to 26, a magnetic system according to another embodiment that is adapted to be incorporated into a conduit”, such as conduit 115); and
a plurality of pairs of magnetic elements provided to a wall of the conduit (see Hocking Fig. 23 helical shaped magnets 801, 803 [corresponding to Fig. 18 magnets 701, 703] is a pair of magnets), wherein each said pair of magnetic elements is provided to opposite sides of the conduit (see Hocking [0174] helical magnets 701, 703 where one spirals in a clockwise direction, and the other spirals in a counter-clockwise direction is the same as in magnets 801, 803 in Fig. 23) and wherein each said pair of magnetic elements is unconnected to and spaced apart in an axial direction from an adjacent pair of magnetic elements of said plurality of pairs of magnetic elements (see Hocking Fig. 23 and 25 show helical shaped magnets 801, 803. As shown in Fig. 25 the magnets 801, 803 are separate components and are thus “unconnected” to each other prior to and during placement within the conduit. As shown in Fig. 23, the magnets 801, 803 have axial spacing between them in the gaps formed between the two spirals. As for the ring-shape, magnets 801, 803 qualify as ring shaped given they are shaped as a spiral or helix, and additionally the top down view of a helix is ring shaped),
wherein a first magnetic element of said pair of magnetic elements is configured to attract one magnetic element of the adjacent pair of magnetic elements when the first magnetic element and the one adjacent magnetic element are less than a predetermined distance apart (see Hocking Figs. 24-25 adjacent surfaces 805 attracted to each other to compress conduit using attraction between surfaces 805 of helical magnets 801, 803).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hocking as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Smith-Reynolds (US 9,408,992).
Regarding claim 22, Hocking discloses magnetic elements that are attachable to another surface (see Hocking [0176] when describing the magnetic material, one feature is “The material may also provide a grip to anchor or secure the hose to adjacent objects, such as a bed cover (FIG. 22).”), but is silent as to each said pair of magnetic elements is provided to a respective clip. However, Smith-Reynolds teaches each said pair of magnetic elements is provided to a respective clip (see Smith-Reynolds Fig. 2 tube 16, on the distal end is fastener with first and second disconnecting means 18, 20. These disconnecting means may be magnets of varying polarity to provide attractive forces overall. Modified onto the conduit 115 of Hocking, the magnets 18, 20 would be of a polarity to allow for attraction of the “clip” to the conduit without interference of, and in harmony with, the magnetic elements 801, 803). 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 conduit including magnetic elements of Hocking with the addition of a respective clip paired to the magnetic elements as taught by Smith-Reynolds so as to securely place the conduit to another surface and avoid unnecessary danger due to loose conduits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 and 23-24 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 6 of the remarks, that the rejection of Claims 19-21 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are traversed because “Hocking teaches a helical magnet and thus does not teach this subject matter”. However, Examiner disagrees because the claimed subject matter of “a plurality of ring-shaped magnetic elements” is present in Hocking for multiple reasons. From a top down view of the helix, the magnetic elements are ring shaped. Also, the definition of “ring” as provided by the reference here is “Any of the turns constituting a spiral or helix” (see attached “Definition of Ring” from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ring). Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hocking in view of Smith-Reynolds, see rejection to claim 22 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785