Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 10/31/24. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 has been cancelled and claims 2-27 have been added. As such, claims 2-27 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Due to a long list of IDS submitted, examiner refers Applicant to MPEP 2004 and in particular to point 13 which states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Note that consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “mask clip inlet collar” (claim 2, 8, and 17), “mask base inlet collar” (claim 2, 8), “mask base collar” (claim 2, 8, 17), “peripheral base wall” (claim 2, 8, and 17).
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 2-16 and 24 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.
The term “generally cylindrical” in claim 2 line 9, 15, 17, 28 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally cylindrical’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mask base collar" in 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “generally cylindrical” in claim 4 line 1, 2, 4 (two instances) (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally cylindrical’.
The term “generally cylindrical” in claim 5 line 1 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally cylindrical’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mask base inlet collar" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the language “the mask base inlet collar” (line 2-3) is unclear as claim 8 sets forth “a mask base collar” (line 9) and a “mask base inlet collar” (line 11) and its is unclear if this language in claim 8 is referring to two separate elements or if referring to the same structural element and it is not clear which, if separate elements, the mask base inlet collar refers to.
Regarding claim 13, the language “the mask base inlet collar” (line 1) is unclear as claim 8 sets forth “a mask base collar” (line 9) and a “mask base inlet collar” (line 11) and it is unclear if this language in claim 8 is referring to two separate elements or if referring to the same structural element and it is not clear which, if separate elements, the mask base inlet collar refers to.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the mask base inlet collar" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-16 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 which already sets forth that the double-layered configuration has/provides an insulating effect that reduces rain-out, in use; therefore it does not further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 8-27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geist (2006/0042629) in view of Hoffman (2007/0163600).
Regarding claim 8, Geist discloses a mask assembly (see Fig. 1-2, 6, 9, 14 and abstract for example) which includes a seal member including a seal member inlet and a face-contacting portion configured to lie against facial contours around at least one respiratory orifice of a user (see Fig. 1, 2A, 6 and 9; seal member 14/44, right side of this element in Fig. 6 and 9 being the face-contacting portion, inlet on left side; see para. 0038); a mask clip attached to the seal member and including a mask clip inlet collar defining a passage into the mask clip and a peripheral clip wall extending outwardly from the mask clip inlet collar (see Fig. 2A and 14; mask clip 20, connected to seal as shown in Fig. 1, mask clip inlet collar 74 defining a passage as shown, peripheral wall shown in Fig. 14-16 which extend outwardly and define headgear engagement portions 77 and 75 as shown; see para. 0035, 0042); a mask base including a mask base collar having an outer collar surface configured to fit within the mask clip inlet collar in an axially coextensive orientation and a peripheral base wall extending outwardly from the mask base collar (see Fig. 2A and 3; mask base 12 including mask base collar 38, peripheral base wall 30-33, see para. 0036; Fig. 6 and 9 showing how mask base collar has an outer collar surface configured to fit within the mask clip inlet collar in axially coextensive orientation); first and second headgear engagement portions (see Fig. 17-18; headgear engagement portions 77 and 75; see para. 0042); and a headgear assembly configured to extend around a back of a head of the user and to support the seal member against the face of the user, in use, and including first and second end portions configured to be connectable to the first and second headgear engagement portions (see Fig. 17-18 showing headgear defined by headstraps 78, 79, and 80; see para. 0042; headgear having end portions engaging headgear engagement portions 75 and 77 as shown). Geist discloses a sealing member having a face-contacting portion, but is silent as to the face-contacting portion being a face-contacting flange portion; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 14A-C, seal 142 including face-contacting flange portion 154). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Geist device’s sealing member contacting-portion to be a face-contacting flange portion, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall includes an inner base wall surface and the mask base collar protrudes proximally from the inner base wall surface (see Geist Fig. 4 showing inner base wall surface, mask base collar 38 protrudes proximally, i.e. left direction in Fig. 3, 6, and 9).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Geist device’s inner base wall surface is concave (see Geist Fig. 3-4, 6, and 9 which shows a concave inner base wall surface).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Geist device is such that the mask clip inlet collar protrudes proximally from the peripheral clip wall (see Geist Fig. 2A and 14; mask clip inlet collar 38 protrudes from the peripheral clip wall proximal, i.e. left direction in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Geist device is silent as to at least one of the outer collar surface and mask clip inlet collar including a tapered portion to releasably secure the collar to the clip inlet collar such that they interact with each other to reduce relative slippage therebetween; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes collar surfaces that are tapered to receive a ball-joint type connector (see Hoffman Fig. 8A, para. 0088, 0089; tapered surface 86). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Geist device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well. The modified Geist device includes the same tapered surface such that it would also promote reduction in slippage.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Geist device is silent as to the inner collar surface of the mask base inlet collar being contoured with a radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end of a swiveling elbow connector; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 8A showing collar inner surface contoured with radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end joint 94; see para. 0089, 0096, and 0110). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Geist device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall extends over a substantial portion of the peripheral clip wall that is more than half of the peripheral clip wall (see Geist Fig. 5-6; the peripheral base wall of base 12 covers at least more than half of the peripheral wall of the clip 20).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall provides a double-layered configuration having an insulating effect that reduces rain-out, in use (see Geist Fig. 6 and 9the peripheral base wall along with the peripheral wall of the clip provides a double-layered configuration together and would provide some level of insulating effect that would reduce rain-out).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Geist device’s double-layered configuration is configured to provide an insulating effect that reduces rain-out, in use (see Geist Fig. 6 and 9the peripheral base wall along with the peripheral wall of the clip provides a double-layered configuration together and would provide some level of insulating effect that would reduce rain-out).
Regarding claim 17, Geist discloses a mask assembly (see Fig. 1-2, 6, 9, 14 and abstract for example) which includes a seal member including a seal member inlet and a face-contacting portion configured to lie against facial contours around at least one respiratory orifice of a user (see Fig. 1, 2A, 6 and 9; seal member 14/44, right side of this element in Fig. 6 and 9 being the face-contacting portion, inlet on left side; see para. 0038); a mask clip attached to the seal member and including a mask clip inlet collar defining a passage into the mask clip and a peripheral clip wall extending outwardly from the mask clip inlet collar (see Fig. 2A and 14; mask clip 20, connected to seal as shown in Fig. 1, mask clip inlet collar 74 defining a passage as shown, peripheral wall shown in Fig. 14-16 which extend outwardly and define headgear engagement portions 77 and 75 as shown; see para. 0035, 0042); a mask base including a mask base collar configured to extend into the mask clip inlet collar and a peripheral base wall extending outwardly from the mask base collar (see Fig. 2A and 3; mask base 12 including mask base collar 38, peripheral base wall 30-33, see para. 0036; Fig. 6 and 9 showing how mask base collar has an outer collar surface configured to extend into the mask clip inlet collar); and at least a first headgear engagement portion (see Fig. 17-18; headgear engagement portions 77 and 75; see para. 0042). Geist discloses a sealing member having a face-contacting portion, but is silent as to the face-contacting portion being a face-contacting flange portion; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 14A-C, seal 142 including face-contacting flange portion 154). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Geist device’s sealing member contacting-portion to be a face-contacting flange portion, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Geist device’s mask base collar includes and outer collar surface configured to fit within the mask clip inlet collar in an axially coextensive orientation (see Geist Fig. 6 and 9 showing how mask base collar 38 has an outer collar surface configured to fit within the mask clip inlet collar in axially coextensive orientation).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Geist device is silent as to at least one of the outer collar surface and mask clip inlet collar including a tapered portion to releasably secure the collar to the clip inlet collar such that they interact with each other to reduce relative slippage therebetween; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes collar surfaces that are tapered to receive a ball-joint type connector (see Hoffman Fig. 8A, para. 0088, 0089; tapered surface 86). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Geist device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well. The modified Geist device includes the same tapered surface such that it would also promote reduction in slippage.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall includes an inner base wall surface and the mask base collar protrudes proximally from the inner base wall surface (see Geist Fig. 4 showing inner base wall surface, mask base collar 38 protrudes proximally, i.e. left direction in Fig. 3, 6, and 9).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Geist device’s inner base wall surface is concave (see Geist Fig. 3-4, 6, and 9 which shows a concave inner base wall surface).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Geist device is such that the mask clip inlet collar protrudes proximally from the peripheral clip wall (see Geist Fig. 2A and 14; mask clip inlet collar 38 protrudes from the peripheral clip wall proximal, i.e. left direction in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Geist device includes a headgear assembly configured to extend around a back of a head of the user and to support the seal member against the face of the user, in use, and configured to be connectable to the first headgear engagement portion (see Geist Fig. 17-18 showing headgear defined by headstraps 78, 79, and 80; see para. 0042; headgear having end portions engaging headgear engagement portions 75 and 77 as shown).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Geist device includes first and second headgear engagement portions (see Geist Fig. 17-18; headgear engagement portions 77 and 75; see para. 0042); and a headgear assembly configured to extend around a back of a head of the user and to support the seal member against the face of the user, in use, and including first and second end portions configured to be connectable to the first and second headgear engagement portions (see Geist Fig. 17-18 showing headgear defined by headstraps 78, 79, and 80; see para. 0042; headgear having end portions engaging headgear engagement portions 75 and 77 as shown).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Geist device is silent as to the inner collar surface of the mask base inlet collar being contoured with a radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end of a swiveling elbow connector; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 8A showing collar inner surface contoured with radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end joint 94; see para. 0089, 0096, and 0110). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Geist device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Geist device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall extends over a substantial portion of the peripheral clip wall that is more than half of the peripheral clip wall (see Geist Fig. 5-6; the peripheral base wall of base 12 covers at least more than half of the peripheral wall of the clip 20).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Geist device’s peripheral base wall provides a double-layered configuration having an insulating effect that reduces rain-out, in use (see Geist Fig. 6 and 9the peripheral base wall along with the peripheral wall of the clip provides a double-layered configuration together and would provide some level of insulating effect that would reduce rain-out).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8-11, 14-23, and 26-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/027207 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims include each structural and functional limitations as claimed (see copending claim 12 which sets forth seal member, mask clip with collar and peripheral wall, mask base with collar and wall) and includes additional limitation such as the seal member being configured to lie around the nose and mouth of the user such that the copending claims are narrower version of the instant claims. As such, any infringement on the copending claims would result in infringement on the instant claims.
Instant claims 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20-23, and 26 correspond to copending claim 12 with changes to shape are deemed to be obvious design choice. Instant claims 9-10, 15-16, 19, and 27 correspond to copending claim 20 with changes to shape are deemed to be obvious design choice.
Claims 12-13, 24, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/027207 in view of Hoffman.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 24, copending claim 12 is silent as to at least one of the outer collar surface and mask clip inlet collar including a tapered portion to releasably secure the collar to the clip inlet collar such that they interact with each other to reduce relative slippage therebetween; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes collar surfaces that are tapered to receive a ball-joint type connector (see Hoffman Fig. 8A, para. 0088, 0089; tapered surface 86). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending claim 12 device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified copending claim 12 device to perform equally as well. The modified copending claim 12 device includes the same tapered surface such that it would also promote reduction in slippage.
Regarding instant claims 13 and 25, the copending claim 12 device is silent as to the inner collar surface of the mask base inlet collar being contoured with a radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end of a swiveling elbow connector; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 8A showing collar inner surface contoured with radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end joint 94; see para. 0089, 0096, and 0110). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending claim 12 device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified copending claim 12 device to perform equally as well.
Claims 2-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/027207 in view of Geist.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 2, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims include each structural and functional limitations as claimed (see copending claim 1 which sets forth seal member, mask clip with collar and peripheral wall, mask base with collar and wall, headgear assembly), but is silent as to explicitly including the swivel elbow as claimed; however, Geist teaches a similar patient interface which includes this feature (see Geist Fig. 1, swiveling elbow 22, para. 0035). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending claim 1 device to include a swivel elbow, as taught by Geist, in order to provide necessary parts to provide respiratory therapy to the user (i.e. fluid connection between flow generator and mask assembly).
Instant claims 2-3 and 6-7 corresponds to copending claim 1, with changes to shape are deemed to be obvious design choice.
Claims 4-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/027207 in view of Geist and Hoffman.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 4, copending claim 1 is silent as to at least one of the outer collar surface and mask clip inlet collar including a tapered portion to releasably secure the collar to the clip inlet collar such that they interact with each other to reduce relative slippage therebetween; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes collar surfaces that are tapered to receive a ball-joint type connector (see Hoffman Fig. 8A, para. 0088, 0089; tapered surface 86). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending claim 1 device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified copending claim 1 device to perform equally as well. The modified copending claim 1 device includes the same tapered surface such that it would also promote reduction in slippage.
Regarding instant claim 5, the copending claim 1 device is silent as to the inner collar surface of the mask base inlet collar being contoured with a radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end of a swiveling elbow connector; however, Hoffman teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Hoffman Fig. 8A showing collar inner surface contoured with radiused surface configured to form a snap fit with a ball end joint 94; see para. 0089, 0096, and 0110). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending claim 1 device to utilize a ball joint type elbow connector, as taught by Hoffman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified copending claim 1 device to perform equally as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lovell (6,631,718), Zollinger et al. (2016/0067437), Frerichs et al. (2005/0155603), Startare et al. (2013/0133664), and Chang (8,720,444) disclose mask assemblies similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights