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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 and 07/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 should read: “a label disposed on a first section of the release liner”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr et al. 8,485,187 in view of Walters et al. 2019/0076616
Regarding claim 1, Orr teaches a system to prevent anesthetic vapors from reaching a patient, the system comprising: a pair of filters (Filters 28 and 38, figure 1); and a connector disposed between the pair of filters and connecting the pair of filters (Connector 60, figure 2), the connector comprising: a release liner (Column 7 line 60 states “connector 60 can be connected to the housing 26 of first filter component 22 and the housing 36 of second filter component 24 using adhesives, magnetic securement or other known securement apparatus.”), but fails to teach a label disposed on a first section the release liner; an adhesive backed-strip disposed on a second section of the release liner, the adhesive-backed strip for placement over at least part of a control of an anesthesia vaporizer after removal from the release liner, the placement of the adhesive-backed strip to prevent inadvertent activation of the control and inadvertent flow of anesthetic vapors from the anesthesia vaporizer.
Walters does teach an analogous adhesive strip device that does teach a label disposed on a first section the release liner (Strip 22, figure 2a) an adhesive backed-strip (Strip 24, figure 2a) disposed on a section of the release liner (release liner 30), the adhesive-backed strip for placement over at least part of a control of an anesthesia vaporizer after removal from the release liner (Since the strip is adhesive, once removed it can be placed on any type of device), the placement of the adhesive-backed strip to prevent inadvertent activation of the control and inadvertent flow of anesthetic vapors from the anesthesia vaporizer (Any type of adhesive strip placed over a device would prevent this type of action from happening).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Orr with the teachings of Walters and include an adhesive backed-strip disposed on a section of the release liner as this adhesive would allow for the securement of an outside device (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pair of filters comprises a pair of activated charcoal filters to capture anesthetic vapors generated by the anesthesia vaporizer (column 10 line 10 of Orr states “According to one embodiment of the present invention, anesthetic vapors are adsorbed by charcoal filter material when the molecules of anesthetic gas are trapped in an unoccupied and appropriately sized pore on the surface of a charcoal granule within the filter.”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the adhesive-backed strip further comprises a visual warning that the patient is a malignant hyperthermic patient, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Regarding claim 5, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the release liner includes indicia advising removal of the pair of filters from an anesthesia machine at an end of a procedure performed on the patient, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III
Regarding claim 6, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach, wherein the indicia of the release liner becomes visible upon removal of the adhesive-backed strip from the release liner, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Regarding claim 7, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one adhesive backed strip comprises a plurality of adhesive backed strips, however “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Regarding claim 8, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 7, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each adhesive backed strip of the plurality of adhesive backed strips includes the same indicia indicating the patient may be susceptible to malignant hyperthermia, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Regarding claim 9, Orr teaches a system to prevent anesthetic vapors from reaching a patient, the system comprising: an activated charcoal filter system (column 10 line 10 of Orr states “According to one embodiment of the present invention, anesthetic vapors are adsorbed by charcoal filter material when the molecules of anesthetic gas are trapped in an unoccupied and appropriately sized pore on the surface of a charcoal granule within the filter.”) comprising a first activated charcoal filter (Figure 1, 28) and a second activated charcoal filter (Figure 1, 38), a connector connecting the first activated charcoal filter to the second activated charcoal filter (Connector 60), wherein each of the first and second activated charcoal filter is to be attached to an anesthesia vaporizer (Column 1 line 54 states that the system is connected to an anesthesia vaporizer), with an adhesive on the liner of the connector (Column 7 line 60 states “connector 60 can be connected to the housing 26 of first filter component 22 and the housing 36 of second filter component 24 using adhesives, magnetic securement or other known securement apparatus.”) but fails to teach a strip removably attached to at least a portion of the activated charcoal filter system, the strip for removal from the activated charcoal filter system and placement on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer.
Walters does teach an analogous adhesive strip device that does teach a removable strip (Strip 24, figure 2a) that can be placed on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer (Since the strip is adhesive, once removed it can be placed on any type of device, any type of adhesive strip placed over a device would prevent this type of action from happening).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Orr with the teachings of Walters and include a removable strip that can be placed on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer as this adhesive would allow for the securement of an outside device (abstract).
Once this modification is made to the connector of Orr, the modified device would now teach a strip removably attached to at least a portion of the activated charcoal filter system, the strip for removal from the activated charcoal filter system and placement on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer.
Regarding claim 11, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the strip comprises an adhesive backing for attaching the strip to the connector (adhesive strip 24 of Walters) and for attaching the strip to controls of the anesthesia vaporizer (This adhesive strip of modified Orr would have the ability to be attached to any outside device).
Regarding claim 12, Orr teaches a method of preventing anesthetic vapors from reaching a malignant hyperthermic patient (column 10 line 10 of Orr states “According to one embodiment of the present invention, anesthetic vapors are adsorbed by charcoal filter material when the molecules of anesthetic gas are trapped in an unoccupied and appropriately sized pore on the surface of a charcoal granule within the filter.”), the method comprising: providing a filter assembly (Figure 1) attaching one end of the filter assembly to an inspiratory limb and an expiratory limb of the anesthesia machine (Figure 2A); attaching breathing hoses to an opposing end of the filter assembly (Column 16 line 1 states “Once the first filter and second filter have been connected to the anesthesia machine, the breathing circuit hoses are replaced with non-contaminated hoses in a step 154.”); and capturing anesthetic vapors generated by the anesthesia machine before the anesthetic vapors reach the malignant hyperthermic patient, the filter assembly capturing the anesthetic vapors (the abstract states “Systems, methods, and apparatus for removing volatile anesthetics from an anesthesia or ventilation system to minimize the effects of malignant hyperthermia in susceptible patients. According to one aspect of the present invention, a system for removing volatile anesthetics is provided. A first filter component placed in fluid communication with an inspiratory limb of an anesthesia or ventilation system such that volatile anesthetics will pass through the first filter component during operation of the anesthesia or ventilation system.”).
Orr fails to teach a strip to be removed from the filter assembly and placed over a control of an anesthesia machine, the strip for preventing inadvertent activation of the control to release anesthetic vapors from an anesthetic vaporizer of the anesthesia machine.
Walters does teach an analogous adhesive strip device that does teach a removable strip (Strip 24, figure 2a) that can be placed on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer (Since the strip is adhesive, once removed it can be placed on any type of device, any type of adhesive strip placed over a device would prevent this type of action from happening).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Orr with the teachings of Walters and include a removable strip that can be placed on a controller of the anesthesia vaporizer to prevent inadvertent activation of the controller of the anesthesia vaporizer as this adhesive would allow for the securement of an outside device (abstract).
Once this modification is made, the combination can now teach a strip (strip 24 of Walters) to be removed from the filter assembly (Figure 1) and placed over a control of an anesthesia machine (The strip has the ability to be placed over a control of the anesthesia machine of Orr), the strip for preventing inadvertent activation of the control to release anesthetic vapors (This strip has the ability to be placed on another device) from an anesthetic vaporizer of the anesthesia machine (Vaporizer mentioned in Column 15 line 16 of Orr).
Regarding claim 13, modified Orr teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the filter assembly comprises: a pair of activated charcoal filters; and a strap disposed between the activated charcoal filters (Filters 28 and 38), the strap comprising: a release liner (Column 7 line 60 states “connector 60 can be connected to the housing 26 of first filter component 22 and the housing 36 of second filter component 24 using adhesives, magnetic securement or other known securement apparatus.”); a label disposed on a first portion of the release liner (Strip 22 of Walters, figure 2a); a strip attached to the label and/or the release liner (Strip 24 of Walters), the strip for attachment to a controller that activates anesthetic vapor delivery for the anesthesia machine, to reduce inadvertent activation of the controller for the malignant hyperthermic patient (Since the strip is adhesive, once removed it can be placed on any type of device, any type of adhesive strip placed over a device would prevent this type of action from happening).
The combination fails to explicitly teach the label including indicia indicating instructions for installation and use of the pair of activated charcoal filters with the anesthesia machine, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Regarding claim 14, modified Orr teaches the method of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the strip comprises a plurality of strips, each strip of the plurality of strips comprising an adhesive backing and including indicia indicating the patient may be susceptible to malignant hyperthermia, however in regards to the plurality of strips “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Furthermore, in regards to indicia indicating the patient may be susceptible to malignant hyperthermia, where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III
Regarding claim 16, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the release liner includes indicia advising removal of the pair of filters from an anesthesia machine at an end of a procedure performed on the patient, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III
Regarding claim 17, modified Orr teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the pair of activated charcoal filters capture an amount of the anesthetic vapors generated by the anesthesia machine ranging from about 30 parts per million (ppm) to 150 ppm, such as 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, 130 ppm or an amount of anesthetic vapors falling within a range defined by any two of the foregoing values (Column 8 line 55 of Orr states “the concentration of inhaled anesthetic within the first portion of expiratory limb 70 can vary anywhere from less than 100 parts per million up to at least 10,000 parts per million.”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Orr teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising preventing inadvertent activation of a controller of the anesthesia machine by removing the strip from the filter assembly and placing the strip on the controller of the anesthesia machine (Strip 24 of Walters can be removed from the connector of Orr and placed on any outside device.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Orr teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising uncovering warnings of a release liner of the filter assembly upon removal of a label and/or the strip from the release liner, however where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Regarding claim 20, modified Orr teaches wherein the strip comprises an adhesive backed strip, and wherein the method further comprises placing the adhesive backed strip over controls of the anesthesia vaporizer of the anesthesia machine, thereby preventing inadvertent activation of the anesthesia vaporizer (Adhesive strip 24 of Walters can be placed on an outside device).
Claims 4, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Orr in view of Foegelle et al. 10,777,099
Regarding claim 4, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the connector further comprises at least one perforated section to attach the adhesive-backed strip to the connector and/or the second section of the release liner. Foegelle does teach an analogous booklet labels that does teach wherein a connector (binding 37, figure 5) further comprises at least one perforated section (perforated section 38, figure 13) to attach the adhesive-backed strip to the connector (adhesive strip 35 as shown in figure 7 is now connected to binding 37) and/or the second section of the release liner. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Orr with the teachings of Foegelle and include wherein the connector further comprises at least one perforated section to attach the adhesive-backed strip to the connector as this allows for a removable connection.
Regarding claim 10, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the strip is attached to the connector via a perforated section. Foegelle does teach an analogous booklet labels that does teach wherein the strip is attached to the connector via a perforated section (adhesive strip 35 as shown in figure 7 is now connected to binding 37). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Orr with the teachings of Foegelle and include wherein the strip is attached to the connector via a perforated section to attach the adhesive-backed strip to the connector as this allows for a removable connection.
Regarding claim 15, modified Orr teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the strip is attached to the connector via a perforated section. Foegelle does teach an analogous booklet labels that does teach wherein the strip is attached to the label via a perforated section (adhesive strip 35 as shown in figure 7 is now connected to binding 37). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Orr with the teachings of Foegelle and include wherein the strip is attached to the label via a perforated section to attach the adhesive-backed strip to the connector as this allows for a removable connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights