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 .
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 6/22/23. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 20, and 27-28 have been amended, claims 2-4, 15-16, 18-19, and 23-26 have been cancelled, and claims 29-31 have been added. As such, claims 1, 5-14, 17, 20-22, and 27-31 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/24/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Note: the crossed-through reference is not being considered at this time as at least an English language abstract or some other explanation of relevant has not been provided.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Note: the term “comprises” (line 2 and 3, two instances) is improper language for an abstract; Examiner suggests amending to read –includes--.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the liquid discharge port and side wall door (claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "21" have both been used to designate the plug(s). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 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: “air space maintaining structure” in claim 11 and 30, “gas delivery maintaining structure” in claim 17.
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 7-9 and 13 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 7, the claim is dependent on claim 3, which is a cancelled claim, and as such the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pipe wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the language “the pipe” (line 2, two instances) is unclear as it is not known if this is referring to the breathing gas delivery pipe overall, the pipe body, the inner pipe, or the outer pipe.
Regarding claim 13, the language “the protrusions in the radial direction” (line 4) is unclear as it is not known if this language is referring to the “plurality of protrusions” in claim 13 line 1-2 or the “protrusions” in claim 12 line 2, or if these are one and the same.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cortez, JR. et al. (2009/0056715).
Regarding claim 1, Cortez discloses a breathing gas delivery pipe configured to deliver gas to a patient interface (see Fig. 3A and 29-32 and abstract for example) including a gas delivery pipe body which includes an inner pipe defining a gas delivery channel therein and an outer pipe fitted outside the inner pipe with pipe support ribs arranged between the inner pipe and outer pipe for keeping the inner pipe and outer pipe spaced apart from each other to define a heat preservation space formed therebetween (Fig. 30 pipe body 600 with inner pipe 602, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 604 with pipe support ribs 601 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0143; Fig. 31-32 pipe body 800 with inner pipe 802, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 804 with pipe support ribs 810 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0144-0145).
Regarding claim 5, the Cortez device is such that one radial end of each pipe support rib is integrally formed with the inner pipe and the other integrally formed with the outer pipe or one radial end integrally formed with one of the inner or outer pipe and the other not integrally formed (see Fig. 30 showing one integrally formed end and Fig. 31 showing both ends integrally formed).
Regarding claim 6, the Cortez device’s heat preservation space is a closed cavity (see Fig. 30 and 31 the cavity formed by the heat preservation space between inner and outer pipes is closed to the outside and does not provide fluid communication between the pipes and is thus closed in this aspect).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jassell et al. (2008/0251073).
Regarding claim 1, Jassell discloses a breathing gas delivery pipe configured to deliver gas to a patient interface (see Fig. 2-5 and abstract for example) including a gas delivery pipe body which includes an inner pipe defining a gas delivery channel therein and an outer pipe fitted outside the inner pipe with pipe support ribs arranged between the inner pipe and outer pipe for keeping the inner pipe and outer pipe spaced apart from each other to define a heat preservation space formed therebetween (Fig. 3 pipe body 20 with inner pipe 22, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 24 with pipe support ribs 26 separating the two and forming a heat preservation space 23 therebetween as shown, para. 0048-0050; Fig. 4 pipe body 120 with inner pipe 122, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 124 with pipe support ribs 126 separating the two and forming a heat preservation space 123 therebetween as shown, para. 0052-0053; Fig. 5 pipe body 220 with inner pipe 222, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 224 with pipe support ribs shown separating the two and forming a heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 6, the Jassell device’s heat preservation space is a closed cavity (see Fig. 3-5 showing the heat preservation space 23 & 123 which are closed off, i.e. no openings to ambient or between the pipes).
Regarding claim 8, the Jassell device includes an electric heating wire arranged in the pipe wall of at least one of the inner pipe and the outer pipe (see Fig. 3, heater wire 28 located in pipe wall of the inner pipe, para. 0049).
Regarding claim 9, the Jassell device’s electric heating wire extends linearly along the pipe or extends spirally around the pipe in an axial direction (see Fig. 2-5, para. 0042 for example).
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez in view of Schultz (11,857,728).
Regarding claim 7, the Cortez device is silent as to an outer side wall of the heat preservation space being provided with a liquid discharge port and a side wall door capable of opening and closing the liquid discharge port; however, Schultz teaches a similar breathing gas delivery pipe which includes this feature (see Schultz Fig. 2-3 and col. 4 ln. 65 through col. 5 ln. 7, liquid discharge port 140 and door 150). Thus 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 Cortez device to include the liquid discharge port and door, as taught by Schultz, in order to drain fluid that may accumulate therein (Schultz col. 10 ln. 28-34).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jassell in view of Cartledge et al. (2002/0061375).
Regarding claim 10, the Jassell device is silent as to a heat preservation layer filled inside the heat preservation space (when read to mean a tangible layer material and not air); however, Cartledge discloses a similar insulated tube which includes a heat preservation space filled with a heat preservation layer (see Cartledge Fig. 1-4 and para. 0083). Thus 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 Jassell device’s heat preservation space to be filled with a heat preservation layer/material, as taught by Cartledge, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another (Cartledge para. 0083) and one would expect the modified Jassell device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 11-14, 17, 20-22, 27, 28, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez in view of Schobel et al. (2007/0283957).
Regarding claim 11, the Cortez device is silent as to the at least one of an inner side surface and outer side surface of the heat preservation space being provided with an air space maintaining structure which maintains an air space at a part of the outer pipe when squeezed and deformed at least partially; however, Schobel discloses a similar breathing tube which includes space maintaining structures located on entire surface of a lumen (see Schobel Fig. 6, air space maintaining structure 32, see para. 0051). Thus 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 Cortez device to include air space maintaining structures, as taught by Schobel, to the inner and outer side surfaces of the heat preservation space in order to prevent total collapse of the heat preservation space when the tube is deformed (Schobel para. 0051).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Cortez device’s air space maintaining structures include protrusions that protrude from one of the inner and outer side surfaces of the heat preservation space which contact opposite structures so as to form the airspace on at least one side of the protrusions in the circumferential direction when the outer pipe is squeezed and deformed (see Schobel Fig. 6 and para. 0051, protrusions/opposite structures 32).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Cortez device includes a plurality of protrusions arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction with opposite structures a side surface of the space opposite in the radial direction or are opposite protrusions in the radial direction (see Schobel Fig. 6 and para. 0051, protrusions 32).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cortez device is such that the cross section of each protrusion is in a shape of a spike and spike side surfaces abutting the spike in the circumferential direction are concave arc-shaped surfaces (see Schobel Fig. 6, spike shaped protrusions 32 with concave arc-shaped side surfaces as shown).
Regarding claim 17, the Cortez device is silent as to the gas delivery pipe body including a gas delivery maintaining structure which maintains gas delivery clearance for gas delivery at a part of the channel where the channel is deformed when the gas delivery pipe body is squeezed and deformed at least partially; however, Schobel discloses a similar breathing tube which includes space maintaining structures located on entire surface of a gas delivery lumen (see Schobel Fig. 6, gas delivery maintaining structure 32, see para. 0051). Thus 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 Cortez device to include gas delivery maintaining structures to the gas delivery channel, as taught by Schobel, in order to prevent total collapse of the heat preservation space when the tube is deformed (Schobel para. 0051).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Cortez device’s gas delivery maintaining structures include protrusions that protrude inward from an inner channel surface of the gas delivery channel and extend axially along the channel to contact opposite structures so as to form the gas delivery clearance on at least one side of the protrusions in the circumferential direction when the pipe body is squeezed and deformed (see Schobel Fig. 6 and para. 0051, protrusions/opposite structures 32).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Cortez device’s opposite structures are parts of the inner channel surface opposite to the protrusions in the radial direction (see Schobel Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Cortez device’s plurality of protrusions are provided and arranged at an interval in the circumferential direction (see Schobel Fig. 6, plural protrusions 32).
Regarding claim 27, Cortez discloses a nasal catheter including a patient interface (see 3A and 29-32 and abstract for example, patient interface 108, para. 0067) which includes a breathing gas delivery pipe with an end connected to the patient interface (see Fig. 3A and 29-32) the gas delivery pipe includes a gas delivery pipe body which includes an inner pipe defining a gas delivery channel therein and an outer pipe fitted outside the inner pipe with pipe support ribs arranged between the inner pipe and outer pipe for keeping the inner pipe and outer pipe spaced apart from each other to define a heat preservation space formed therebetween (Fig. 30 pipe body 600 with inner pipe 602, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 604 with pipe support ribs 601 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0143; Fig. 31-32 pipe body 800 with inner pipe 802, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 804 with pipe support ribs 810 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0144-0145). Cortez is silent as to explicitly including a gas source connecting terminal connected to the tube at the other end; however, Schobel discloses this feature (see Schobel Fig. 1, gas source connecting terminal 6, see para. 0035-0036). Thus 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 Cortez device to explicitly include a gas source connecting terminal, as taught by Schobel, in order to provide the structural elements to provide removable connection between parts.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Cortez device is silent as to the at least one of an inner side surface and outer side surface of the heat preservation space being provided with an air space maintaining structure which maintains an air space at a part of the outer pipe when squeezed and deformed at least partially; however, Schobel discloses a similar breathing tube which includes space maintaining structures located on entire surface of a lumen (see Schobel Fig. 6, air space maintaining structure 32, see para. 0051). Thus 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 modified Cortez device to include air space maintaining structures, as taught by Schobel, to the inner and outer side surfaces of the heat preservation space in order to prevent total collapse of the heat preservation space when the tube is deformed (Schobel para. 0051).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Cortez device’s air space maintaining structures include protrusions that protrude from one of the inner and outer side surfaces of the heat preservation space which contact opposite structures so as to form the airspace on at least one side of the protrusions in the circumferential direction when the outer pipe is squeezed and deformed (see Schobel Fig. 6 and para. 0051, protrusions/opposite structures 32).
Regarding claim 28, Cortez discloses ventilation therapy device including a nasal catheter including a patient interface (see 3A and 29-32 and abstract for example, patient interface 108, para. 0067) which includes a breathing gas delivery pipe with an end connected to the patient interface (see Fig. 3A and 29-32) the gas delivery pipe includes a gas delivery pipe body which includes an inner pipe defining a gas delivery channel therein and an outer pipe fitted outside the inner pipe with pipe support ribs arranged between the inner pipe and outer pipe for keeping the inner pipe and outer pipe spaced apart from each other to define a heat preservation space formed therebetween (Fig. 30 pipe body 600 with inner pipe 602, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 604 with pipe support ribs 601 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0143; Fig. 31-32 pipe body 800 with inner pipe 802, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 804 with pipe support ribs 810 separating the two and forming heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0144-0145). Cortez is silent as to explicitly including a gas source connecting terminal connected to the tube at the other end; however, Schobel discloses this feature (see Schobel Fig. 1, gas source connecting terminal 6, see para. 0035-0036). Thus 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 Cortez device to explicitly include a gas source connecting terminal, as taught by Schobel, in order to provide the structural elements to provide removable connection between parts.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jassell in view of Schobel.
Regarding claim 27, Jassell discloses a ventilation catheter including a breathing gas delivery including a gas delivery pipe body which includes an inner pipe defining a gas delivery channel therein and an outer pipe fitted outside the inner pipe with pipe support ribs arranged between the inner pipe and outer pipe for keeping the inner pipe and outer pipe spaced apart from each other to define a heat preservation space formed therebetween (Fig. 3 pipe body 20 with inner pipe 22, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 24 with pipe support ribs 26 separating the two and forming a heat preservation space 23 therebetween as shown, para. 0048-0050; Fig. 4 pipe body 120 with inner pipe 122, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 124 with pipe support ribs 126 separating the two and forming a heat preservation space 123 therebetween as shown, para. 0052-0053; Fig. 5 pipe body 220 with inner pipe 222, defining gas delivery channel therein as shown, and outer pipe 224 with pipe support ribs shown separating the two and forming a heat preservation space therebetween as shown, para. 0056-0057). Jassell is silent as to explicitly including a gas source connecting terminal connected to the tube at the other end; however, Schobel discloses this feature (see Schobel Fig. 1, gas source connecting terminal 6, see para. 0035-0036 and which connects to patient interface 2). Thus 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 Cortez device to explicitly include a gas source connecting terminal and connecting to a nasal interface/catheter, as taught by Schobel, in order to provide the structural elements to provide removable connection between parts and a desired form of ventilation interface (obvious substitution).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jassell and Schobel as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Cartledge.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Jassell device is silent as to a heat preservation layer filled inside the heat preservation space (when read to mean a tangible layer material and not air); however, Cartledge discloses a similar insulated tube which includes a heat preservation space filled with a heat preservation layer (see Cartledge Fig. 1-4 and para. 0083). Thus 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 modified Jassell device’s heat preservation space to be filled with a heat preservation layer/material, as taught by Cartledge, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another (Cartledge para. 0083) and one would expect the modified Jassell device to perform equally as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen et al. (CN 108310551), Smith (5,623,922), Huddart et al. (5,640,951), Huddart et al. (6,078,730), and Mackie et al. (2003/0059213).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785