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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 8-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Rejoinder will be reconsidered upon identification of allowable subject matter as indicated in the requirement mailed on 20 February 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/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.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites “at least one of the mutually insulated wires forming the capacitor is formed by a heating wire”. However, this limitation creates confusion as to the minimum number of wires required by the claim inasmuch as it is unclear if this “a heating wire” is the same or different from the “heating element including a wire…” Specifically, Claim 1 appears to require a total of three wires wherein the “two mutually insulated wires” are differentiated from the “a wire” which is used to form the heating element. It is unclear if the instant claim, therefore, requires two heating wires where a second heating wire, distinctive from the wire forming the heating element of Claim 1, forms one of the mutually insulated wires – i.e. there presents a total of three wires OR if Claim 6 is permissive to two wire configurations wherein a heating wire satisfies both conditions of the heating element and one of the mutually insulated wires. Consideration of the detailed disclosure in the specification suggests (see Fig. 3) that the claim is intended to be met by only two wires – but such a configuration would appear to be contradictory to Claim 1 which would, by a matter of plain grammar, require three wires.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0028768 (“Boyes”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0173217 (“Seekup”).
Regarding Claim 1, Boyes discloses an insufflation device (see generally 305) for use in medical technology comprising:
an insufflator (see generally 210) for gas supply and;
an insufflation tube (305), the insufflation tube including a humidifying material (340 – Par. 46), the humidity of the system being dependent upon the humidity/moisture content of the humidifying material, in contact with a heating element (350) the humidifying material being in contact with a heating element, the heating element including a wire which can be activated by applying a current (Par. 49).
Boyes discloses that in some embodiments the invention may be provided with a humidity sensor (Par. 65) including embodiments wherein the sensor comprises “two sensor wires” (Par. 75) – although no further exposition on this arrangement is disclosed by Boyes. Looking to Seekup, the prior art discloses a humidity sensor for an insufflation tube wherein moisture/humidity can be detected by measuring or inferring capacitance and/or impedance or a change in capacitance and/or impedance (Par. 7) using one or more conductive wires (re: two conductive wires) which can be mutually insulated so as to form a capacitor whose impedance depends on humidity (Par. 7, 127-128).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a humidity sensor in the invention of Boyes in the form of a capacitor formed of mutually insulated conductive wires, as disclosed by Seekup, in order to allow the humidity of the system to be sensed/detected via a known and predictable sensor arrangement recognized by the prior art for using a specific physical effect, i.e. a change in capacitance and impedance incident to a change in moisture, to detect humidity within a system.
Regarding Claim 2, Boyes, as modified in view of Seekup, discloses at least one of the mutually insulated wires is arranged on an outer wall of the insufflation tube, an inside the wall of the insufflation tube, on an inner wall of the insufflation tube, or inside the insufflation tube (see Par. 127, Seekup).
Regarding Claim 3, Boyes discloses the insufflation tube further includes a temperature sensor (Par. 65).
Regarding Claim 4, Boyes discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that the temperature sensor is disposed at a patient end of the insufflation tube. However, Seekup discloses that such a location is a well-known location for a temperature sensor (Par. 101). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the temperature sensor of the invention of Boyes at a patient end of the insufflation tube, as disclosed by Seekup, in order to improve the accuracy of the temperature sensor to determine the temperature at which the gas is actually being supplied to the patient.
Regarding Claim 5, Boyes, as modified by Seekup, discloses that the capacitor may be formed via a connecting cable/wire of the temperature sensor (Par. 115, 127 - Seekup).
Regarding Claim 6, Boyes, as modified by Seekup, discloses at least one of the mutually insulated wires forming the capacitor is formed by a connecting cable of the temperature sensor (Par. 127 – Seekup).
Regarding Claim 7, Boyes, as modified by Seekup, discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that that at least one of the wires of the capacitor is formed as a “metallic braided tube”. Although, in alternative embodiments Seekup discloses that a metallic braided sheath can be provided as an electrically conductive structure via which capacitance can be measured (Par. 276). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a metallic, braided wire sheath as one of the conductive elements/wires in a modified system of Boyes to create a capacitor element for the purposes of measuring humidity, as disclosed by Seekup, with such a braided sheath serving as a clear, specifically enumerated alternative to a sensor and/or heating wire for such sensing purposes (see Par. 276 – Seekup).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R CARPENTER whose telephone number is (571)270-3637. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Thus. - 7:00AM to 5:00PM (EST/EDT).
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, KEVIN SIRMONS can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights