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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/6/26. Claims 12, 14-19, 22, 24-28 and 31 have been amended. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Therefore, claims 12-32 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 22-23, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kooij et al. (2011/0067704).
Regarding claim 22, in fig. 34 Kooij discloses a nasal cannula (structure in fig. 34), comprising: a central body portion 1005 comprising a cavity (defined by a hollow interior of 1005) and an inlet at an end of the central body portion (an inlet is shown to be at a first end at a left-hand side 1007 of the central body portion), wherein each of a first end 1007 of the cavity and a second end 1009 of the cavity has a diameter that is the same (Fig. 34); a first prong (left 1010) and a second prong (right 1010) extending from the central body portion (Fig. 34); the first prong and the second prong are sized and being able to flush carbon dioxide from nares of a user (the first prong and the second prong are sized to insert into the nares [0155], such that the prongs are able to flush carbon dioxide from nares of the user), the cavity defining a flow direction (left to right) that is aligned with a longitudinal axis in an area that contains and extends between the first prong and the second prong (Fig. 34), at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area downstream of the inlet and formed by an annular ridge extending into the cavity (see highlighted annular ridge in annotated Fig. 34 below), wherein the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area is able to cause a pressure drop whereby a decreased gas flow rate results downstream of the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (based on its cross-sectional reducing structure), wherein an entire width of the first prong is positioned within the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (Fig. 34) and an entire width of the second prong is positioned within the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (Fig. 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Kooij discloses that the inlet is configured to receive a flow of gases from an inlet tube (1100, abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Kooij discloses that a cross-sectional shape of the annular ridge comprises a rounded projection (the rounded projection is between the prongs, Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 28, Kooij discloses that a cross-sectional shape of the annular ridge is asymmetrical (along a longitudinal plane due to the rounded projection between the prongs, Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 29, Kooij discloses lateral portions (614, fig. 41-42).
Regarding claim 30, Kooij discloses headgear straps (602, Fig. 41) configured to connect to the lateral portions (Fig. 41-42).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wondka (2009/0183739).
Regarding claim 31, Wondka discloses a nasal cannula (defined by interface assembly 50, see figs. 2 and 10A-10D and the abstract), comprising: a central body portion (defined by manifold 64, see fig. 10A) comprising a cavity (defined by a hollow interior of the manifold 64) and an inlet at an end of the central body portion 64 (an inlet is shown to be at a first end at a right-hand side of the central body portion 64 which receives a gas supply assembly 120, see fig. 2 and para. [0077]), wherein each of a first end (right end) of the cavity and a second end (left end) of the cavity has a diameter that is the same (both having the same diameters close to what is shown in fig. 10A); wherein a first prong (defined by a nasal cushion 70, see fig. 2, attached to a right-hand attachment rim 240, see fig. 10A) and a second prong (defined by a nasal cushion 70, see fig. 2, attached to a left-hand attachment rim 240, see fig. 10A) extending from the central body portion 64 (the first and second prongs 70 being shown to extend from the central body portion 64, see figs. 2 and 10A); the first prong 70 and the second prong 70 are sized and being able to flush carbon dioxide from nares of a user (the first prong 70 and the second prong 70 being sized to optimally and comfortably match the person’s anatomy, see para. [0075], where the first prong 70 and the second prong 70 are hollow to provide a gas flow path, see figs. 5 and 15B, such that the first prong 70 and the second prong 70 are able to flush carbon dioxide from nares of the user), a single ridge 310 positioned between the first prong and the second prong (at least in part), the single ridge extending from an interior surface of the central body portion (Fig. 10B-10D); and at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area downstream of the inlet and formed by the single ridge (defined by an radial stiffening rib 310) extending into the cavity (ridge 310 being shown to extend radially into the cavity, see figs. 10A-10D), the single ridge 310 comprising a gradient of slope (see fig. 10D), an entirety of the single ridge is configured to be positioned between the first prong and the second prong (where 310 is pointing in fig. 10D), and an apex of the single ridge configured to be positioned closer to the first prong than the second prong (where 310 is pointing in fig. 10D); wherein the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area is able to cause a pressure drop whereby a decreased gas flow rate results downstream of the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (the localized reduction in cross-sectional area acts as a throttle, paras. [0075] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 32, Wondka discloses that the inlet is configured to receive a flow of gases from an inlet tube 140.
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.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wondka (2009/0183739).
Regarding claim 12, Wondka discloses a nasal cannula (defined by interface assembly 50, see figs. 2 and 10A-12D and the abstract), comprising: a central body portion 64 comprising a cavity (defined by a hollow interior of the manifold 64) and an inlet at an end of the central body portion 64 (an inlet is shown to be at a first end at a right-hand side of the central body portion 64 which receives a gas supply assembly 120, see fig. 2 and para. [0077]), wherein each of a first end (right end) of the cavity and a second end (left end) of the cavity has a diameter that is the same (both having the same diameters close to what is shown in fig. 10A); two prongs (defined by a nasal cushions 70, see fig. 2 and fig. 10A) extending from the central body portion 64 (the first and second prongs 70 being shown to extend from the central body portion 64’, see figs. 2 and 10A); the two prongs being configured to be inserted into nares of a user (Fig. 1), the two prongs 70 being sized and configured to flush carbon dioxide from the nares of the user (the first prong 70 and the second prong 70 being sized to optimally and comfortably match the person’s anatomy, see para. [0075], the two prongs are hollow to provide a gas flow path, see figs. 5 and 15B, such that the two prongs are able to flush carbon dioxide from nares of the user), at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area downstream of the inlet and formed by an annular ridge (defined by two radial ribs 310, the two ribs relied upon are the ribs that extend over the vent apertures at the bottom of the cavity) extending into the cavity (the ridges 310 being shown to extend radially into the cavity, see figs. 10D), at least a portion of the annular ridge being configured to be positioned between the two prongs (Fig. 10D, each of the two ribs are between outer diameters of the prongs), the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area being configured to cause a pressure drop whereby a decreased gas flow rate results downstream of the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (the localized reduction in cross-sectional area acts as a throttle, paras. [0075] and [0092]); wherein each of the two prongs is positioned in the at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area (each of the two ribs are between outer diameters of the prongs while extending below their respective prong), but is silent regarding that a cross-sectional shape of the ridge is asymmetrical. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wondka’s cross-sectional shape of the ridge with an asymmetrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component and it appears that an asymmetrically shaped ridge would perform equally as well at reducing the cross-sectional area in the cavity. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wondka discloses that the inlet is configured to receive a flow of gases from an inlet tube 140.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wondka discloses that the annular ridge 310 comprises a curved leading edge (Fig. 10D).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Wondka discloses that the annular ridge comprises a tapered leading edge or a tapered trailing edge (both the leading and trailing edges on either side of the apex begin to taper).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Wondka discloses that the annular ridge 310 comprises one or more convergent or divergent sections (the ridge 310 is shown to converge, from its curved leading edge and curved trailing edge, to a curved top, see fig. 10D).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Wondka discloses that the localized reduction in cross-sectional area comprising at least one additional annular ridge (the two ribs defined in the rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Wondka discloses that the annular ridge 314 is off-centered relative to the two prongs (each of the two ridges 310 are not directly centered under the prongs, further the right ridge is not centered under the left prong and the left ridge is not centered under the right prong).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Wondka discloses that a width of the annular ridge 310 varies (the ridge 310 is shown to change in width due to having a curved leading edge with an apex, the apex width being smaller than the width at the base of the ridge, see fig. 10D).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wondka discloses lateral portions 110’.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Wondka discloses headgear straps 80 configured to connect to the lateral portions [0077].
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kooij, as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 24, Kooij is silent regarding that a center of the annular ridge is positioned closer to the first prong than the second prong, the first prong positioned closer to the inlet than the second prong. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kooij’s center of the annular ridge with a center positioned closer to the first prong than the second prong, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component and it appears that a center positioned closer to the first prong than the second prong would perform equally as well at providing a pressure drop. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 25, Kooij is silent regarding that a center of the annular ridge is positioned closer to the second prong than the first prong, the second prong positioned closer to the inlet than the first prong. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kooij’s center of the annular ridge with a center positioned closer to the second prong than the first prong, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component and it appears that a center positioned closer to the second prong than the first prong would perform equally as well at providing a pressure drop. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kooij, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Nielsen (5,740,799).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Kooij is silent regarding a cross-sectional shape of the annular ridge comprises a squared or triangular projection. However, in figures 1-2 and 4 Nielsen teaches that a cannula 1 has a squared outer surface projection 7 can be used to reduce the flow area, see col. 2, lines 45-59 of Nielsen. 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 Kooij’s rounded projection between the prongs with a squared projection, as taught by Nielsen, for the purpose of providing an alternate cross-sectional shape having the predictable results of reducing a cross-sectional area of a cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/6/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under Wondka (2009/0183739) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wondka (2009/0183739).
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/6/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 22 under Wondka (2009/0183739) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kooij et al. (2011/0067704).
With respect to claim 31, on page 6 applicant argues that Wondka teaches more than one radial stiffening rib 310.
This argument is not taken well since the limitation of “a single ridge positioned between the first prong and the second prong” is read on by a single rib 310 of Wondka between the first and second prongs. The language has comprising language, which is open-ended language allowing for more than one ridge, despite the “single” language, since rib 310 is a single rib or ridge. Further, the language “at least one localized reduction in cross-sectional area downstream of the inlet and formed by the single ridge” allows for more than one localized reduction in cross-sectional area downstream of the inlet formed by the single ridge and therefore allowing for more than one ridge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785