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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 12/16/2022. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority regarding CN2022233878144 (filing date of 12/16/2022). CN2022233878144 provides sufficient support for the subject matter of claims 1-10. Therefore, the current application will be assigned the effective filing date of 12/16/2022.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
FIG. 2 appears to identify an element using reference character “313,” whereas the claims recite a “third branch (31).” The relationship between the reference character 31 and 313 is unclear from the drawings. Additionally, Fig. 2 labels the third branch "2" instead of "3."
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “a certain length” (In 2) is objected due to it being a relative or imprecise term that fails to positively recite the intended structural characteristic of the plate body. Applicant is required to amend the claim to recite the particular dimensional relationship or other structural limitation intended by the phrase. As an example, the phrase could be corrected to --a plate body with a length--.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1,2, 4, 6, and 7 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically:
The limitation “flow guide component” (Claim 1, In 6, 15, 16; Claim 2, In 1; Claim 4, In 3; Claim 6, In 3; and Claim 7, In 4, 5) recites a function of guiding air without reciting sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalent thereof. The corresponding structure for “flow guide component” is a “plate body with a length” ([0014]; see Fig. 2, flow guide component 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claim 8 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. Specifically:
The phrase “a certain length” (In 2) is relative or imprecise term that fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. It is unclear what contributes to “a certain length” because no objective boundary or standard is provided in the claim. recite the intended structural characteristic of the plate body. Applicant is required to amend the claim to recite the particular dimensional relationship or other structural limitation intended by the phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso et al (20110067699) in view of Higginbotham et al. (20210299387).
Regarding claim 1, Caruso discloses pipeline structure (FIG. 4A) configured to prevent backflow of condensed water, comprising:
a first branch (FIG. 4A. See annotated Fig. below);
a second branch (FIG. 4A);
and a flow guide component (FIG. 4A);
wherein a first end of the first branch is a first air port, the first air port is configured to connect to a human body, and a second end of the first branch is a first communicating port (FIGS. 1A depicts a first end of the first branch (102) is a first air port in which the first air port is configured for a patient (see; FIG 1A), and a second end of the first branch is a first communicating port. See Annotated FIGS. 4A below);
a first end of the second branch is a second air port, the second air port is configured to connect to a breathing machine body, and a second end of the second branch is communicated with the first communicating port (FIG. 4A depicts a first end of the second branch is a second air port, the second air port is configured to connect to a breathing machine apparatus (see, FIGS. 1A & 1B), and a second end of the second branch is communicated with the first communicating port. See Annotated FIG. 4A;
Caruso does not explicitly disclose a third branch a first end of the third branch is a third air port, and a second end of the third branch is communicated with the first communicating port and a flow guide component and the flow guide component is configured to guide an air of the first branch to the third branch and discharge the air through the third air port. It is noted that Caruso discloses a flow guide component configured to guide air of the first branch to the reservoir area where redirected gas flow and separate heavier respiratory fluids from the gas stream sits (FIG. 4A depicts a flow guide component 408 configured to guide an air of the first branch to the third branch and retain the humid condensation air in the form of a liquid through the third air port [0084]). See Annotated FIG. 4A.
However, Higginbotham discloses a third branch and the first end of the third branch is a third air port, and a second end of the third branch is communicated with the first communicating port (Higginbotham FIG. 4 depicts a third branch (82,86) a first end of the third branch is a third air port, and a second end of the third branch is communicated with the first communicating port See Annotated FIG. 4 below).
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 pipeline structure of Caruso to include the third branch of Higginbotham because incorporating the third branch would provide an additional outlet in communication with the first communicating port while allowing Caruso’s flow guide component to continue directing airflow toward the branch for removal of humid condensate air. Combining these teachings would have predictably allowed the redirected airflow and separated condensate of Caruso to be discharged through the third branch of Higginbotham, yielding the expected benefit of improved condensate management.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
414
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure (FIG. 4A), wherein a flow guide cavity 102, the flow guide cavity 102 comprises an air inlet cavity port, the air inlet cavity port faces the first communicating port, and an area of the air inlet cavity port is greater than an area of the first communicating port. See Annotated FIG. 4A Above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure according to claim 2, wherein the second branch comprises a second communicating port, the second communicating port is configured to connect to the first communicating port, and the second branch is bent in a zigzag shape from the second air port to the second communicating port. See Annotated FIG. 4A Above. Furthermore, Caruso discloses a pipeline structure including multiple interconnected flow sections 402, 404, 406 that may be selectively repositioned relative to one another. As shown in FIGS. 4C and described in paragraphs [0087-0088], sections of the structure are rotated relative to one another, creating a zigzag flow path between second air port to the second communicating port. See Annotated FIG. 4C Below
PNG
media_image3.png
306
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure (FIG.4C), wherein the second branch is bent in an upward zigzag shape from the second air port to the second communicating port, and the third branch 82,86 is disposed below. See Annotated FIG. 4C Above & Annotated FIG. 4 Above.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure (FIG. 4) wherein the flow guide cavity 102 further comprises the third branch 82,86 and the flow guide cavity is an acute angle. See Annotated FIG. 4C & FIG. 4 Above.
The modified device of Caruso does not disclose an air outlet cavity port and the third branch being connected to the air outlet cavity port, and an included angle between the third branch. However, Higginbotham discloses an air outlet cavity port 36 and the third branch 82,86 being connected to the air outlet cavity port 36, and an included angle 104 between the third branch. See Annotated FIG. 4 Above.
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 modified device of Caruso to include the air outlet cavity port and third branch connection as taught by Higginbotham because positioning the third branch in commination with the air outlet cavity provides a dedicated discharge path for redirected airflow and collected condensate while maintaining the intended airflow through the pipeline. Such modification merely incorporates Higginbotham’s known outlet branch arrangement into Caruso’s known condensate management device to achieve the predictable result of improving condensate discharge and reducing backflow of condensed liquid within the pipeline.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure (FIG. 4A) wherein the pipeline structure comprises a pipeline main body; the first branch, the second branch, the third branch 82,86, and specifically regarding the pipeline main body (see; FIG. 4A and Higginbotham FIG. 4) comprises a first housing 400 and a second housing 82,86 and the first housing and the second housing are assembled to form the pipeline main body. See Annotated FIG. 4A and Higginbotham Annotated FIG. 4);
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure (FIG. 4), wherein the first housing comprises a protruding cavity; the protruding cavity defines the first communicating port, the second air port, and an opening; the second housing is configured to seal the opening, the third branch 82,86 is disposed in the second housing, and the second branch [0011]. See Annotated FIGS. 4A and 4 Below.
PNG
media_image4.png
286
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
414
614
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8,the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure according to claim 7, wherein the flow guide component is a plate body with a certain length; one side, opposite to an inner wall of the protruding cavity, of the flow guide component is the second branch; one side, opposite to the second housing, of the flow guide component is the flow guide cavity; the flow guide cavity comprises the air inlet cavity port, the air inlet cavity port faces the first communicating port, and an area of the air inlet cavity port is greater than an area of the first communicating port. See Annotated FIGS. 4A and 4 Above.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Caruso does disclose a pipeline structure according to claim 8, wherein the flow guide cavity comprises an air outlet cavity port 36, and the air outlet cavity port 36 is defined on the second housing and is connected to the third branch 82,86. See Annotated FIGS. 4A and 4 Above.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Caruso discloses a pipeline structure breathing machine, comprising the pipeline structure, and a humidifier; wherein the humidifier is connected to the first air port (Specifically, Caruso discloses a respiratory breathing circuit in which gases pass through the disclosed pipeline structure and further teaches humidification of respiratory gases by the use of heat and moisture exchange (HME) material configured to capture moisture from exhaled breath and return moisture during inhalation, thereby humidifying inspired gases [0114-0115]).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEROME PRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-8454. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LDP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
