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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed 7/2/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 11-12, and 15 were amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 line 6 recites “a ridge” and is suggested to read --a ridge-- (i.e. delete the extraneous space between words) in order to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 11-14, and 19 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 6, the limitation "a ridge" recited in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the gas administration tube ridge and/or the gas sampling tube ridge claimed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same as one of the previously claimed ridge limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation "and a tube" recited in line 6 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the gas sampling tube in line 5. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "an airway device" recited in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the airway device claimed in claim 11. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation "a ridge" recited in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the gas administration tube ridge and/or the gas sampling tube ridge claimed in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same as one of the previously claimed ridge limitations.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2009/0013995 A1) in view of Roberts et al. (US 2012/0259244 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Williams in view of Roberts and Chilcott et al. (US 2021/0370006 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses an airway adjunct (bracket 18 with oxygen supply line 28 and carbon dioxide monitoring line 20) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising:
a gas administration tube (oxygen supply line 28) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a first internal terminal end (end of line 28 inside the airway with endpoint 33) (Figs. 1-2; para. [0023]) and a first port end (end of line 28 outside of airway to oxygen source) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
a gas sampling tube (carbon dioxide monitoring line 20) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a second internal terminal end (end of line 20 inside the airway) (Figs. 1-2 ; para. [0023]) and a second port end (end of line 20 outside of airway to the carbon dioxide monitor) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
wherein, the gas sampling tube is longer than the gas administration tube by a predetermined length such that the gas sampling tube extends further into a patient's airway than the gas administration tube (line 20 extends farther into the airway 10 than line 28, as line 20 is 4 cm into the airway 10 and line 28 is 2 cm into the airway 10) (Fig. 2; para. [0025]), and
the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube (see annotated Image 1 below, the structure indicated as a web appears to hold the lines 20, 28 at a consistent distance from each other),
the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are inserted into an airway device via an opening (opening at the proximal end 14 of the airway 10 though which lines 20, 28 are inserted) (Fig. 1).
Williams does not disclose the gas administration tube comprising a ridge on one side; a ridge on one side of the gas sampling tube; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device.
However, Roberts teaches a catheter system that functions as an endotracheal tube (Roberts; abstract; para. [0082]) wherein the two tubes each comprising a ridge on one side; the ridges each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device (both inner catheters 200a, 200b can include a key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side; each key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the outer catheter 100 prior to insertion into the body, i.e. at the proximal end of the outer catheter 100; outer catheter 100 can be an endotracheal tube) (Roberts; Figs. 3A-3B; para. [0051]; para. [0055]; para. [0082]).
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 Williams two tubes and airway device such that the two tubes each comprise a ridge on one side; the ridges each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device, as taught by Roberts, for the purpose of providing a mechanism for fixing the rotational orientation of the inner tubes relative to an outer tube, as well as serving as a positional indicator as to what radial direction the distal end portion of an inner tube is pointing (Roberts; para. [0051]).
With this modification, the modified Williams would thus teach the gas administration tube comprising a ridge on one side; a ridge on one side of the gas sampling tube; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device (the modified Williams lines 20, 28 would each have a Roberts key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side; each Roberts key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the Williams airway 10 before entering the patient’s body, i.e. at proximal end opening of the Williams airway 10 through which the Williams lines 20, 28 are inserted, thereby securing the lines 20, 28 to the airway 10) (Williams, Figs. 1-6B; Roberts, Figs. 3A-3B, para. [0051], para. [0055], para. [0082]).
However, if Williams is not seen as definitively disclosing the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, Chilcott teaches a respiratory gas delivery and sampling system (Chilcott; abstract) including wherein two tubes are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the two tubes (clip 5270 connects a pair of lumens equidistant from each other) (Chilcott; Figs. 49-54; para. [0257]).
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 Williams web such that the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, as taught by Chilcott, for the purpose of providing the device with a specific web structure for keeping the tubes equidistant from each other while allowing for the tubes to be pulled or pushed axially through the web or clip so their free lengths can be adjusted (Chilcott; para. [0257]).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotation of Williams Fig. 1 showing a web connecting the two lines at a distance from each other.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway adjunct is adapted to secure to an airway device (bracket 18 with oxygen supply line 28 and carbon dioxide monitoring line 20 is secured onto the airway lumen 12) (Williams; Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway device comprises an oropharyngeal airway (oral airway 10) (Williams; Figs. 1-4; para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Williams teaches further comprising a ridge adapted to secure the airway adjunct into a throat of the airway device (the modified Williams lines 20, 28 would each have a Roberts key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side so as to secure the Williams lines 20, 28 inside the throat of the Williams airway 10) (Williams, Figs. 1-6B; Roberts, Figs. 3A-3B, para. [0051], para. [0055], para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Williams teaches wherein the first port and the second port comprise tubing connectors (connectors 50 and 60) (Williams; Fig. 7; para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Williams discloses a method of maintaining a patient's airway (oral airway to provide an airway to a patient) (abstract), comprising:
providing a gas administration tube (oxygen supply line 28) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a first internal terminal end (end of line 28 inside the airway with endpoint 33) (Figs. 1-2; para. [0023]) and a first port (end of line 28 outside of airway to oxygen source) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
providing a gas sampling tube (carbon dioxide monitoring line 20) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a second internal terminal end (end of line 20 inside the airway) (Figs. 1-2 ; para. [0023]) and a tube (line 20 is constructed of tubing) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
connecting the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube (see annotated Image 1 above, the structure indicated as a web appears to hold the lines 20, 28 at a consistent distance from each other), and
inserting the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube into an airway device via an opening (opening at the proximal end 14 of the airway 10 though which lines 20, 28 are inserted) (Fig. 1).
Williams does not disclose the gas administration tube comprising a ridge on one side; the gas sampling tube comprising a ridge on one side; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engaging the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device.
However, Roberts teaches a catheter system that functions as an endotracheal tube (Roberts; abstract; para. [0082]) wherein the two tubes each comprising a ridge on one side; the ridges each engaging the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device (both inner catheters 200a, 200b can include a key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side; each key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the outer catheter 100 prior to insertion into the body, i.e. at the proximal end of the outer catheter 100; outer catheter 100 can be an endotracheal tube) (Roberts; Figs. 3A-3B; para. [0051]; para. [0055]; para. [0082]).
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 Williams two tubes and airway device such that the two tubes each comprise a ridge on one side; the ridges each engaging the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device, as taught by Roberts, for the purpose of providing a mechanism for fixing the rotational orientation of the inner tubes relative to an outer tube, as well as serving as a positional indicator as to what radial direction the distal end portion of an inner tube is pointing (Roberts; para. [0051]).
With this modification, the modified Williams would thus teach the gas administration tube comprising a ridge on one side; a ridge on one side of the gas sampling tube; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engaging the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device (the modified Williams lines 20, 28 would each have a Roberts key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side; each Roberts key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the Williams airway 10 before entering the patient’s body, i.e. at proximal end opening of the Williams airway 10 through which the Williams lines 20, 28 are inserted, thereby securing the lines 20, 28 to the airway 10) (Williams, Figs. 1-6B; Roberts, Figs. 3A-3B, para. [0051], para. [0055], para. [0082]).
However, if Williams is not seen as definitively disclosing the gas administration tube and gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, Chilcott teaches a respiratory gas delivery and sampling system (Chilcott; abstract) including wherein two tubes are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the two tubes (clip 5270 connects a pair of lumens equidistant from each other) (Chilcott; Figs. 49-54; para. [0257]).
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 Williams web such that the gas administration tube and gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, as taught by Chilcott, for the purpose of providing the device with a specific web structure for keeping the tubes equidistant from each other while allowing for the tubes to be pulled or pushed axially through the web or clip so their free lengths can be adjusted (Chilcott; para. [0257]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Williams teaches further comprising attaching an airway adjunct to an airway device, thereby forming an airway assembly, the airway adjunct comprising the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube (bracket 18 with the carbon dioxide monitoring line 20 and oxygen supply line 28 attached to the airway lumen 12) (Williams; Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Williams teaches further comprising connecting a tubing between the second port and a carbon dioxide monitoring machine (line 20 has connector 50 to the ETCO2 monitor) (Williams; Fig. 7; para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Williams teaches further comprising connecting a tubing between the first port and an oxygen supply (line 28 has connector 60 to the O2 source) (Williams; Fig. 7; para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Williams discloses an airway assembly (bracket 18 with oxygen supply line 28 and carbon dioxide monitoring line 20) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising:
a housing (airway lumen 12 housing) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0023]);
a gas administration tube (oxygen supply line 28) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a first internal terminal end within the housing (end of line 28 with endpoint 33 inside the airway lumen 12) (Figs. 1-2; para. [0023]) and a first port outside of the housing (end of line 28 outside of airway lumen 12 to oxygen source) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
a gas sampling tube (carbon dioxide monitoring line 20) (Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0023]) comprising a second internal terminal end within the housing (end of line 20 inside the airway lumen 12) (Figs. 1-2 ; para. [0023]) and a second port outside of the housing (end of line 20 outside of airway lumen 12 to the carbon dioxide monitor) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0028]);
wherein, the gas sampling tube is longer than the gas administration tube by a predetermined length such that the gas sampling tube extends further into a patient's airway than the gas administration tube (line 20 extends farther into the airway 10 than line 28, as line 20 is 4 cm into the airway 10 and line 28 is 2 cm into the airway 10) (Fig. 2; para. [0025]),
the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube (see annotated Image 1 above, the structure indicated as a web appears to hold the lines 20, 28 at a consistent distance from each other),
the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube are inserted into an airway device via an opening (opening at the proximal end 14 of the airway 10 though which lines 20, 28 are inserted) (Fig. 1).
Williams does not disclose the gas administration tube comprising a ridge outside of the housing; the gas sampling tube comprising a ridge outside of the housing; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device.
However, Roberts teaches a catheter system that functions as an endotracheal tube (Roberts; abstract; para. [0082]) wherein the two tubes each comprising a ridge outside of the housing; the ridges each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device (both inner catheters 200a, 200b can include a key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side along a length of a respective inner catheters 200a, 200b; as the inner catheters 200a, 200b have length outside of the outer catheter 100 at both ends, so too would the key joint component 214 have length outside of the outer catheter 100 at both ends; each key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the outer catheter 100 prior to insertion into the body, i.e. at the proximal end of the outer catheter 100; outer catheter 100 can be an endotracheal tube) (Roberts; Figs. 1, 3A-3B; para. [0051]; para. [0053]; para. [0055]; para. [0082]).
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 Williams two tubes and airway device such that the two tubes each comprise a ridge outside of the housing; the ridges each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the two tubes in the airway device, as taught by Roberts, for the purpose of providing a mechanism for fixing the rotational orientation of the inner tubes relative to an outer tube, as well as serving as a positional indicator as to what radial direction the distal end portion of an inner tube is pointing (Roberts; para. [0051]).
With this modification, the modified Williams would thus teach the gas administration tube comprising a ridge outside of the housing; the gas sampling tube comprising a ridge outside of the housing; the gas administration tube ridge and the gas sampling tube ridge each engage the opening of the airway device to secure the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube in the airway device (the modified Williams lines 20, 28 would each have a Roberts key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side along a length of a respective Williams line 20, 28; as the Williams lines 20, 28 have length outside of the airway 10 at its proximal end, so too would the Roberts key joint component 214 have length outside of the Williams airway 10 proximal end; each Roberts key joint component 214 would engage a keyway key joint component 112 of the Williams airway 10 before entering the patient’s body, i.e. at proximal end opening of the Williams airway 10 through which the Williams lines 20, 28 are inserted, thereby securing the lines 20, 28 to the airway 10) (Williams, Figs. 1-6B; Roberts, Figs. 3A-3B, para. [0051], para. [0055], para. [0082]).
However, if Williams is not seen as definitively disclosing the gas administration tube and gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, Chilcott teaches a respiratory gas delivery and sampling system (Chilcott; abstract) including wherein two tubes are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the two tubes (clip 5270 connects a pair of lumens equidistant from each other) (Chilcott; Figs. 49-54; para. [0257]).
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 Williams web such that the gas administration tube and gas sampling tube are connected by a web that maintains a consistent distance between the gas sampling tube and the gas administration tube, as taught by Chilcott, for the purpose of providing the device with a specific web structure for keeping the tubes equidistant from each other while allowing for the tubes to be pulled or pushed axially through the web or clip so their free lengths can be adjusted (Chilcott; para. [0257]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway assembly comprises an airway adjunct secured to an airway device, the airway adjunct comprising the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube (carbon dioxide monitoring line 20 and oxygen supply line 28 are attached to the airway lumen 12 of the oral airway 10) (Williams; Figs. 1-4; abstract; para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway device comprises an oropharyngeal airway (oral airway 10) (Williams; Figs. 1-4; para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway adjunct further comprises a ridge adapted to secure the airway adjunct into a throat of the airway device (the modified Williams lines 20, 28 would each have a Roberts key joint component 214 of any key shape, such as square, on one respective side so as to secure the Williams lines 20, 28 inside the throat of the Williams airway 10) (Williams, Figs. 1-6B; Roberts, Figs. 3A-3B, para. [0051], para. [0055], para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Williams teaches wherein the first port and the second port comprise tubing connectors (connectors 50 and 60) (Williams; Fig. 7; para. [0028]).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Roberts and Chilcott as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Connell (US 6,098,617).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Williams teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the airway device comprises a nasopharyngeal airway.
However, Connell teaches a device for delivering an inhalant gas to an airway (Connell; abstract) wherein the airway device comprises a nasopharyngeal airway (airway can be an oral or nasopharyngeal airway; the two are identical except the diameter of the nasopharyngeal airway is smaller to allow for insertion into the nose) (Connell; abstract; col. 4, lines 58-61).
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 Williams airway device to be a nasopharyngeal airway, as taught by Connell, for the purpose of allowing the device to be inserted into the nose (Connell; abstract; col. 4, lines 58-61), which would thereby allow for a healthcare provider to have an option for airway placement if a patient medically cannot have an airway placed through the mouth.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Williams teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein: the gas administration tube comprises a first elbow bend and the gas sampling tube comprises a second elbow bend.
However, Connell further teaches the gas administration tube comprises a first elbow bend and the gas sampling tube comprises a second elbow bend (both conduits 94, 96 in the airway 92 have respective bent portions 94C, 96C, such that the respective legs 94A, 96A outside of the airway 92 lie on the rim 92D) (Connell; Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-58).
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 Williams the gas administration tube to comprise a first elbow bend and the gas sampling tube to comprise a second elbow bend, as taught by Connell, for the purpose of ensuring the conduits can only extend into the airway at a desired distance, as the tubes cannot be positioned further into the airway than their bent portions (Connell; Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-58).
Claims 5, 8-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Roberts and Chilcott as applied to claims 1-2 and 16 above, and further in view of Rockwell et al. (US 2019/0125213 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Williams teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising a clamping tab adapted to secure the airway adjunct to a collar of the airway device.
However, Rockwell teaches a body attached to a patient airway and gas lines (Rockwell; abstract), including a clamping tab adapted to secure the airway adjunct to a collar of the airway device (at least one of the tabs 442, 444, 446, 448 used to attach the plate 410 with gas lines 420, 430 onto the edges of the airway 140 flange) (Rockwell; Figs. 6-11; paras. [0043-0044]).
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 Williams airway adjunct such that it includes a clamping tab adapted to secure the airway adjunct to a collar of the airway device, as taught by Rockwell, for the purpose of providing the device with an alternate means of attachment for the airway adjunct which one of ordinary skill could reasonably expect to perform similarly well (Rockwell; para. [0045]), as well as for the purpose of providing a means of attachment which would allow for the airway adjunct to be removable, thereby allowing for easier cleaning or replacement.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Williams teaches further comprising an adjunct body, wherein the gas administration tube and the gas sampling tube pass through the adjunct body (gas lines 420, 430 through attachment plate 410 via gas-line-securing portions 414, 416) (Rockwell; Figs. 6-8; para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Williams teaches further comprising a ventilation through-hole in the adjunct body (aperture 112 through attachment plate 410) (Rockwell; Figs. 3, 6-8; para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Williams teaches wherein the airway adjunct further comprises a clamping tab adapted to secure the airway adjunct to a collar of the airway device (at least one of the tabs 442, 444, 446, 448 used to attach the plate 410 with gas lines 420, 430 onto the edges of the airway 140 flange) (Rockwell; Figs. 6-11; paras. [0043-0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 in the “Double Patenting Rejection” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant does not set forth any arguments or agreements regarding the double patenting rejections of the previous office action. However, with the newly amended claims, the Examiner has withdrawn the double patenting rejections of the previous office action. Thus, the newly amended claims are not being rejected under double patenting.
On page 6 in the “Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that claim 12 has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn that rejection. However, the newly amended claims have raised new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as detailed above, and so the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 in the “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103” of the Applicant’s remarks with respect to the newly amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection with new additional Roberts reference being used in the current rejections as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785