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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 12/30/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2020/141403 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, there is no colon following the preamble of the claim. Examiner suggests including a colon after “comprising” in both claim 28 and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(a) Rejections
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner interprets claims 16-20 to refer to Fig. 7, which is the anesthetic gas path system with the anesthesia main machine, the breathing circuit mechanism referred to as 500 without the bellows, and a blocking member. There is no ventilator present in this figure or system. Therefore, when claim 17 recites “the ventilator” in line 3, it is unclear how a ventilator is a present in this system given the drawing of Fig. 7. Paragraph 0091 of the instant application’s specification discusses how the system of Figs. 7 and 9 have no ventilator, so it is unclear how a ventilator is introduced in claim 17. Claim 17 also recites “a first breathing circuit mechanism”. However, it is unclear how a first breathing circuit mechanism, which examiner interprets as reference number 400, is a part of this system based on Figs. 7 and 9.
112(b) Rejections
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 1-29 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 1, the claim recites “a second exhaust passage” in line 8 and “a third exhaust passage” in line 11, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how there is a “second exhaust” and a “third exhaust” without a first exhaust passage. Therefore, it is unclear how many exhaust passages are present within the claimed structure of claim 1. Examiner suggests renumbering the exhaust passages so that the exhaust passages are presented in numerical order and this order is maintained throughout the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a third exhaust emission interface” in line 2 and “a first exhaust emission interface” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how there is a “third exhaust emission interface” and a “first exhaust emission interface” without a second exhaust emission interface. Therefore, it is unclear how many exhaust emission interfaces are present within the claimed structure of claim 4. Examiner suggests renumbering the exhaust emission interfaces so that the exhaust emission interfaces are presented in numerical order.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a fresh gas interface” in lines 7 and 19 and “a second fresh gas interface” in line 16, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how there is “a second fresh gas interface” without a corresponding first fresh gas interface, making it unclear how many fresh gas interfaces are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests rephrasing “a fresh gas interface” as “a first fresh gas interface” in claim 6 and all dependent claims.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the fresh gas interface” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which “fresh gas interface” is further limited as claim 6 made it unclear how many fresh gas interfaces are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests rephrasing “the fresh gas interface” as “the first fresh gas interface”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a second breathing circuit mechanism” in line 6 and a “second breathing circuit mounting base” in line 6, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how there is a “second breathing circuit mechanism” and a “second breathing circuit mounting base” without a corresponding first breathing circuit or first base, making it unclear how many breathing circuits are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests removing “second” and introducing these structures as “a breathing circuit mechanism” and a “breathing circuit mounting base”.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation "the ventilator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “a fresh gas interface” in lines 7 and 20 and “a second fresh gas interface” in line 16, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how there is “a second fresh gas interface” without a corresponding first fresh gas interface, making it unclear how many fresh gas interfaces are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests rephrasing “a fresh gas interface” to “a first fresh gas interface” in claim 21 and all dependent claims.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “the fresh gas interface” in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which “fresh gas interface” is further limited as claim 21 made it unclear how many fresh gas interfaces are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests rephrasing “the fresh gas interface” as “the first fresh gas interface”.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites “the fresh gas interface” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which “fresh gas interface” is further limited as claim 21 made it unclear how many fresh gas interfaces are present within the claimed structure. Examiner suggests rephrasing “the fresh gas interface” as “the first fresh gas interface”.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “the ventilator” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests rephrasing to “a ventilator”. The claim recites “a ventilator” in line 15. Examiner interprets this to be the same ventilator introduced in line 12, so examiner suggests rephrasing “a ventilator” to “the ventilator” in line 15. The claim also recites “the first breathing circuit mechanism” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests rephrasing to “the breathing circuit mechanism” as the claim recites only “a breathing circuit mechanism” earlier in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “the ventilator” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests rephrasing to “a ventilator”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedorowicz (US 20050133030 A1) in view of McCormick (US 20200353201 A1) and Cai (WO 2022126447 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fiedorowicz teaches an anesthetic gas path system, comprising: an anesthesia main machine (Fig. 1, wick assembly 1) configured to supply an anesthetic gas, wherein the anesthesia main machine is provided with a main machine housing (Fig. 3, main body 19) and a volatilization tank (paragraph 0066 “A lower zone 20 of the reservoir chamber 18 is filled, in use, with a supply of a liquid anaesthetic agent”) for volatilizing an anesthetic drug (paragraph 0066 “The anaesthetic is then free to evaporate from the wicks 3, 4, 6 into the respective channels 7 and central aperture 10”), a first anesthetic gas passage is provided inside the main machine housing, the first anesthetic gas passage communicates with the volatilization tank (claim 1 “to define a path for carrier gas being passed through the vaporiser, and each being provided with respective wick means operatively connected to said reservoir means so as to permit flow of liquid anaesthetic agent from the reservoir means to each wick means”).
Fiedorowicz is silent on a second breathing circuit mechanism having a second breathing circuit mounting base, wherein a second anesthetic gas passage is provided in the second breathing circuit mounting base, so as to deliver an anesthetic gas mixture containing the anesthetic gas into a subject.
However, McCormick teaches a second breathing circuit mechanism (Figs. 3A-3C, breathing system 10) having a second breathing circuit mounting base (Fig. 3C shows a base that holds bellows 52), wherein a second anesthetic gas passage is provided in the second breathing circuit mounting base (the gas flow path arrows within breathing circuit 10 shown in Fig. 2), so as to deliver an anesthetic gas mixture containing the anesthetic gas into a subject (Fig. 2 shows that the gas passage within breathing circuit 10 is eventually delivered to user 28).
Thus, 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 the product of Fiedorowicz to include a breathing circuit mechanism to actually deliver the anesthetic vapor to a patient in a controlled manner and transport gases between the anesthesia machine and the patient. McCormick also suggests using their device in combination with an anesthesia machine (paragraph 0001 “The present disclosure generally relates to anesthesia machines comprising breathing systems, and more particularly to a breathing system for an anesthesia machine having a disposable portion and a reusable portion”), therefore it would have been obvious to modify Fiedorowicz with the teachings of McCormick.
Fiedorowicz further teaches the anesthesia main machine having a first interface group comprising a first driving gas interface (paragraph 0070 “Carrier gas enters the wick assembly 1 from an entry port 26”) and first exhaust emission interface (Fig. 4, the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b could be used as an exhaust interface).
Fiedorowicz is silent on the anesthesia main machine having a second interface group, the second interface group comprises a second driving gas interface, a fresh gas interface, and a second exhaust emission interface.
However, Cai teaches the anesthesia main machine having an interface group, the group comprises a second driving gas interface (Fig. 1, driving gas inlet 7), a fresh gas interface (Fig. 1, fresh gas input port 8), and a second exhaust emission interface (page 4 paragraph 1“When there is excess exhaled air, the excess exhaled air will be discharged through the burst valve 6”).
Thus, 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 the product of Fiedorowicz to include a second interface group to interface with the breathing circuit mechanism of McCormick when Fiedorowicz is modified by McCormick. It would have been obvious to include a fresh gas interface to support the breathing and provide fresh air to a user (page 3 paragraph 14 “and then mixed with the fresh gas input from the fresh gas input port 8 and then inhaled”). It would have been obvious to include a second driving gas interface to supply the driving gas into the breathing circuit mechanism. It would have been obvious to include a second exhaust emission interface to allow excess gas from the fresh gas interface to leave the system via this second exhaust emission interface.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified Fiedorowicz teaches the system of claim 16.
Fiedorowicz further teaches comprising a blocking member (upper manifold block 21), wherein the blocking member blocks the first driving gas interface and the first exhaust emission interface (Figs. 4 and 8 where upper manifold block 21 blocks entry port 26 and the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b).
Regarding claim 19, modified Fiedorowicz teaches the system of claim 16.
Fiedorowicz further teaches comprising a top plate (upper manifold block 21) which is disposed above the main machine housing and blocks the first interface group (Figs. 4 and 8 where upper manifold block 21 blocks entry port 26 and the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17, 21-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-15 and 28, Fiedorowicz teaches an anesthesia main machine with a housing and a volatilization tank, Ishikita (US 20230277799 A1) teaches a ventilator, and McCormick teaches a breathing circuit mechanism with a bellows and base. However, Fiedorowicz does not teach a reasonable driving gas passage intermediary between a ventilator and a bellows, going through the anesthesia housing to build an interconnected system that allows driving gas to flow between the structures of the system. It would not have been obvious to modify these passages given the teachings of Fiedorowicz.
Regarding claim 17, the anesthesia machine of Fiedorowicz and the ventilator of Ishikita do not teach or suggest exhaust passages that communicate with each other and create a passage for the exhaust outputted by the breathing circuit mechanism of McCormick. It would not have been obvious to modify Fiedorowicz and Ishikita with these communicating exhaust passages given their teachings.
Regarding claims 21-27, Fiedorowicz teaches an anesthesia main machine with a housing and a volatilization tank, Ishikita teaches a ventilator, and McCormick teaches a breathing circuit mechanism with a bellows and base. However, Fiedorowicz does not teach a reasonable driving gas passage intermediary between a ventilator and a bellows, going through the anesthesia housing to build an interconnected system that allows driving gas to flow between the structures of the system. It would not have been obvious to modify these passages given the teachings of Fiedorowicz. It would not have been obvious to modify the breathing circuit mechanism with a user interface given the teachings and limitations of McCormick.
Regarding claim 29, Fiedorowicz teaches the anesthesia main machine with a main machine housing (Fig. 3, main body 19), and a volatilization tank (paragraph 0066 “A lower zone 20 of the reservoir chamber 18 is filled, in use, with a supply of a liquid anaesthetic agent”) for volatilizing an anesthetic drug (paragraph 0066 “The anaesthetic is then free to evaporate from the wicks 3, 4, 6 into the respective channels 7 and central aperture 10”), wherein the main machine housing has a first anesthetic gas passage in communication with the volatilization tank (claim 1 “to define a path for carrier gas being passed through the vaporiser, and each being provided with respective wick means operatively connected to said reservoir means so as to permit flow of liquid anaesthetic agent from the reservoir means to each wick means”); the first interface group comprises a first driving gas interface (paragraph 0070 “Carrier gas enters the wick assembly 1 from an entry port 26”) and a first exhaust emission interface (Fig. 4, the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b could be used as an exhaust interface); when the anesthesia main machine is not connected to the ventilator, the first driving gas interface and/or the second driving gas interface is capable of being blocked (Figs. 4 and 8 where upper manifold block 21 blocks entry port 26 and the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b), and the first exhaust emission interface is configured to be blocked (Figs. 4 and 8 where upper manifold block 21 blocks entry port 26 and the recesses 23, 27, 29, 35a, or 35b). However, Cai teaches the anesthesia main machine having a interface group, the group comprises a second driving gas interface (Fig. 1, driving gas inlet 7), a fresh gas interface (Fig. 1, fresh gas input port 8), and a second exhaust emission interface (page 4 paragraph 1 “When there is excess exhaled air, the excess exhaled air will be discharged through the burst valve 6”). However, the combination does not teach or suggest the second exhaust emission interface is configured for an exhaust outputted by the breathing circuit mechanism to enter to the main machine housing and the first anesthetic gas passage has a gas source interface for interfacing with an external gas source. Although McCormick does teach a breathing circuit, there is no suggestion for the exhaust interface of Fiedorowicz to receive this exhaust or have a gas source interface. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to modify these teachings to create an exhaust passageway using interfaces between anesthesia machine and a breathing circuit or gas source giving the teachings of Fiedorowicz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHIL A JAYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at 5712729034. 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.
/AKHIL A JAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785