DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings have been received on 3/29/2023 and these drawings have been objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 for the following reasons: lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined; and numbers and reference characters are not plain and legible for all figures. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the reasons stated above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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: “power unit” in claims 1-4 and 6 and “control unit” in claims 1-6.
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 § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “that automatically takes foreign matter from a respiratory airway” which positively recites the airway. The examiner recommends changing this language to read “configured to automatically take foreign matter from a respiratory airway”.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shang et al. (CN 215915857), hereinafter Shang. The examiner notes that the translation is used in the rejections set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, Shang discloses: A portable first-aid anti-asphyxiation device (figure 1) that automatically takes foreign matter from a respiratory airway (abstract), comprising:
a suction master member (top portion of figure 1 not including 3 and 18) and
a mask (3, 18),
wherein the suction master member comprises a housing (1, 2), a power unit (9), a control unit (shown in figure 4: 14, 16, 17), and a piston module (6, 7, 8),
the power unit (9) is configured to drive the piston module (6, 7, 8) to move inside the housing to generate negative pressure and take the negative pressure to suck the foreign matter out of the airway (page 3, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 2, Shang further discloses wherein the housing is a tube (1, 2 is a tube as shown in figure 2) defining a space, the tube defining the space has an inner chamber (within 4) and an outer chamber (between 1 and 4), the power unit (9) is received in the outer chamber (see figure 2), and the piston module (6, 7, 8) is received in the inner chamber (see figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang in view of He (US 11,478,575 B1), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 3, Shang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above. Shang does not explicitly disclose wherein an end of the tube is arranged with an one-way air-intake valve and two one-way air-outlet valves, the one-way air-intake valve is configured to control the inner chamber to intake air unidirectionally, and the two one-way air-outlet valves are configured to control the outer chamber to output air unidirectionally.
However He teaching a removal device (abstract) wherein an end (at 24) of the tube (3) is arranged with an one-way air-intake valve (21) and two one-way air-outlet valves (22), the one-way air-intake valve is configured to control the inner chamber to intake air unidirectionally (col. 8, lines 44-48; Shang provides air into the inner chamber and thus the modification would result in the one-way air-intake valve would control the inner chamber of Shang to intake air unidirectionally), and the two one-way air-outlet valves (22) are configured to control the outer chamber to output air unidirectionally (col. 9, lines 22-29; Shang as modified by the valve structure would have the one-way air-outlet valves around the periphery of the inlet valve and thus would be configured to control the outer chamber to output air unidirectionally as they would be located at the ledge where 2 meets 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shang such that an end of the tube is arranged with an one-way air-intake valve and two one-way air-outlet valves, the one-way air-intake valve is configured to control the inner chamber to intake air unidirectionally, and the two one-way air-outlet valves are configured to control the outer chamber to output air unidirectionally as taught by He for the benefit of compressing being accelerated (col. 9, lines 25-29) and preventing pushing air into the patient (col. 8, lines 12-13).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang in view of He, in further view of Kirchner (US 7,267,662 B1), hereinafter Kirchner.
Regarding claim 4, Shang further discloses wherein the piston module comprises a piston rod (7, 6) sealed to an inner wall of the tube (see figure 2), and the other end (at 8) is fixed to a press sleeve (4, see figure 2).
Shang does not explicitly state one end of the piston rod (at 6) is arranged with a U-shaped seal ring.
However, Kirchner teaches it is known wherein one end (at 7.1, 7.2) of a piston rod (7) is arranged with a U-shaped seal ring (see figures 5A-E, especially 5C).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shang wherein one end of the piston rod (at 6) is arranged with a U-shaped seal ring as taught by Kirchner for the benefit of providing an appropriate seal with an appropriate amount of friction. Further a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Shang further discloses wherein the power unit is a spring (9), and the spring is disposed between the press sleeve (4) and the tube (1) (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang in view of Richards (US 3,316,903).
Regarding claim 6, Shang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above. Shang does not explicitly disclose wherein an outside of the suction master member is arranged with a hanging bracket.
However, Richards discloses an oral device wherein an outside of the device is arranged with a hanging bracket (17) (see figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shang to include a hanging bracket for the benefit of allowing a strap to hold the device in the position as shown in figure 2 of Shang (col. 3, lines 15-20 of Richards), and for the benefit of carrying the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 at (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 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785