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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauner (WO 95/30448) in view of Gianturco (US 4,445,896 A1) in further view of Valentini et al. (US 4,786,281).
Regarding claim 1, Brauner discloses: A ventilator medication injection structure (figures 1, 2) comprising:
a T-tube (shown in figure 1 and annotated below) having a tube body extending from an inlet (left end of figure 1) to an outlet (right end of figure 1 where catheter assembly 10 connects to endotracheal tube 90), with a branch tube (annotated below; y-adaptor 70) being formed on one side of the tube body (top side), wherein a first tube body (76) is fitted and assembled to the branch tube (as shown below in figure 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
728
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Brauner discloses a luer locking injection port 76, Brauner is not specific as to the structure of that port.
However, Gianturco teaches a luer locking injection port structure (10). The Luer locking injection port comprising: a cover (11) having a first tube body (28) formed below a flange (see below), a second tube body (inner tube body as shown in figure 1) formed inside the first tube body such that the second tube body penetrates the flange (as shown in figure 1), and a male screw (12; threads 13) formed on an outer peripheral surface of the second tube body (see figure 1) (col. 3, lines 1-8); and
a packing closure (16) having a fourth tube body formed on an outside of the third tube body (external tube of 16), a female screw (where 16 mates with 11 at threads 13) formed on the fourth tube body and fastened to the male screw (as shown in figure 1), and a packing (17) which has elasticity (abstract) and which is disposed inside the body (as shown in figure 1), and medication is capable of being injected inside the T-tube (of Brauner as set forth above) with a syringe by piercing the packing (17) with a syringe needle and passing the syringe needle through packing closure (16) (col. 1, line 61-col. 2, line 2) (col. 3, lines 8-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brauner as taught by Gianturco (substituting one luer lock injection port structure for another) since the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 139.
As modified Brauner does not disclose the packing closure having a third tube body formed at a center of a body such that the third tube body is fitted inside the second tube body and passing the syringe needle through the third tube body.
However, Valentini teaches it is known for a packing closure (figure 2) to include a third tube body formed at the center of a body (interior tube 1 formed at the center of the body of figure 2) such that the third tube is fitted inside a second tube body (as shown the threads 3 are located surrounding 1 and thus inner tube 1 would be fitted inside second tube body 2) such that a syringe needle is passed through the third tube body (col. 3, lines 21-35). Valentini further includes a fourth tube body formed on an outside of the third tube body (external tube shown in figure 2), a female screw (at 3) formed on the fourth tube body, and a packing (5) which has elasticity and which is disposed inside the body (as shown in figure 2).
Both the packing closure of Gianturco and Valentini have the same function of providing a seal and a pathway for medicament. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bruaner (substituting the packing closure of Gianturco for the packing closure of Valentini) as taught by Valentini since the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 139.
Regarding claim 2, Brauner as modified further discloses wherein the first tube body (28 of Gianturco) is formed of a material having elasticity (Gianturco: col. 2, line 65, col. 3, lines 49-50). While Gianturco does explicity describe the first tube body (28) is provided in a tapered shape having a narrow lower side, you can see from figure 1 of Gianturco that 28 tapers and is more narrow at the bottom lower side compared to the upper portion. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first tube 28 of Gianturco such that it has a tapered shape having a narrow lower side as this is reasonably taught by the drawings.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauner (WO 95/30448) in view of Gianturco (US 4,445,896 A1) in further view of Valentini et al. (US 4,786,281) in further view of Herron (US 2013/0333701 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Brauner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a power connector to which an external power source is connected is disposed on one side of the T-tube, a heating wire is disposed inside the T-tube, and the heating wire is configured to be connected to the external power source and is configured to heat conditioned air.
However Herron teaches it is known to provide a power connector (50; where 83 connects on 20 (see figures 2b and 3) [0041] to which an external power source (70, figure 3, [0041]) is connected is disposed on one side of the adapter (20), a heating wire is disposed inside the T-tube (as shown in figure 5, 6), and the heating wire is configured to be connected to the external power source [0052]-[0053] and is configured to heat conditioned air (heated hose as per [0056] is configured to heat conditioned air).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brauner to include a power connector to which an external power source is connected is disposed on one side of the T-tube, a heating wire is disposed inside the T-tube, and the heating wire is configured to be connected to the external power source and is configured to heat conditioned air to provide air to as taught by Herron to prevent condensation (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785