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 § 102
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 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.
Claim 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada (US Pat. No. 5,817,067), hereinafter Tsukada.
Regarding claim 23, Tsukada teaches a circuit end cap (Figs. 1, 4, 9, abstract Tsukada teaches a cap which is capable of being used at the end of a circuit) comprising:
a body configured to be inserted into an end of a breathing circuit component (See annotated figure below, the body is capable of being inserted into a breathing circuit);
a flange at a first end of the body (Figs. 1, 4, 9: flange 1), wherein a diameter of the flange is larger than a diameter of the body (Fig. 1, 4, 9, the flange 1 has a larger diameter than the body) and wherein a lower surface of the flange facing the body is configured to at least partially seal against the end of the breathing circuit component (See Fig. 9, the lower surface of the flange rests against the catheter so would at least partially seal); and
a pull ring extending from the flange (Fig. 1: pull ring 5) and configured to aid removal of the circuit end cap from the breathing circuit component and/or to hang the breathing circuit component from a medical stand or hook. (The pull ring is capable of being used to hang the plug)
PNG
media_image1.png
446
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, and further teaches wherein the body comprises one or more frustoconical tapers configured to form a sealing interface with an interior of the breathing circuit component. (See fig. 9, frustoconical tapers)
Regarding claim 25, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 24, and further teaches wherein the one or more frustoconical tapers comprise three frustoconical tapers (See fig. 9, 3 frustoconical tapers) the three frustoconical tapers providing a friction fit with the breathing circuit component while allowing the circuit end cap to be removed from the breathing circuit component. (See, fig. 9, retained in catheter with tapers, Col. 2: lines 44-45, possible to detachably connect the plug to a port of a medical appliance so it may be removed)
Regarding claim 26, Tsukada teaches he circuit end cap of claim 23, and further teaches wherein the pull ring extends from a top surface of the flange along a longitudinal axis of the body. (See Figs. 7A, 7B where the pull ring can be vertical)
Regarding claim 27, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, and further teaches wherein the pull ring extends from a side of the flange perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the body. (See fig. 1, strap 5 extends perpendicular to the axis of the body)
Claim 36, 38, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al (US 2012/0191037), hereinafter Patel.
Regarding claim 36, Patel teaches a circuit end cap (fig. 4: 90), comprising:
a body configured to be inserted into an end of a breathing circuit component (Fig. 4: body portion 96, Fig. 2), the body comprising:
a first end (Fig. 4: 100), a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 4); and
one or more channels extending along an outer surface of the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 4: channels 94), the one or more channels configured to allow gases to vent from the breathing circuit component (Paragraph 39, vented stem 92, channels 94 allow venting); and
a flange at the first end (Fig. 4: 100), a diameter of the flange being larger than a diameter of the body (See fig. 4: the diameter of 100 is larger than stem 92), a lower surface of the flange facing the body (Fig. 4), the lower surface at least partially sealing against the end of the breathing circuit component when the body is inserted into the end of the breathing circuit component.(paragraph 40, outer surface 84 serves as a sealing surface for element 90)
Regarding claim 38, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, and further teaches wherein the one or more channels extend into a lower surface of the flange. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 39, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, and further teaches wherein the one or more channels are spaced evenly around a perimeter of the body. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 41, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, and further teaches wherein the one or more channels and the flange provide a tortuous path for dust or contaminant ingress into the breathing circuit component. (as stated in paragraph 27, the larger flange and grooves provide a tortuous path so the Patel reference would also provide a tortuous path)
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.
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 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada.
Regarding claim 28, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, but does not state wherein the diameter of the flange can be selected for use with various breathing circuit components.
However, choosing a specific diameter for a particular purpose is merely a design choice and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to choose a diameter which is larger than the circuit the end cap is designed for so that the opening is completely covered.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada in view of Clegg et al (US Pat. No. 5,057,093), hereinafter Clegg.
Regarding claim 29, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 24, wherein the diameter of the body and a diameter of the one or more frustoconical tapers can be selected for use with various breathing circuit components.
However, Clegg teaches an adapter with stepped diameters (Fig. 1) which can be used with various sizes of catheters. (Col.4: lines 1-9)
Therefore, an end cap wherein the diameter of the body and a diameter of the one or more frustoconical tapers can be selected for use with various breath circuit components flows from the combination of Tsukada and Clegg.
It would have been a simple matter of design choice that would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to choose a diameter of the body and a diameter of one or more tapers to fit the desired port or tubing.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada in view of Patel.
Regarding claim 34, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, but is silent as to further comprising a lip, the lip extending perpendicularly from a perimeter of the flange.
However, Patel teaches a circuit end cap (Fig. 4: 90) which has a lip extending perpendicularly from a perimeter of the flange. (Fig. 3: lip 102)
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to have provided the flange of Tsukada with the lip of Patel in order to provide a better seal.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Herman et al (US Pat. No. 4,190,087), hereinafter Herman.
Regarding claim 37, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, but does not teach wherein the body comprises frustoconical tapers configured to form a sealing interface with an interior of the breathing circuit component.
However, Hermes teaches a breather cap (Fig. 1) and further teaches that conventional frustoconical tapers are designed to accept and tightly engage tubing. (col. 2:lines 35-60)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to incorporate the frustoconical tapers of Hermes into the cap of Patel in order to improve sealing.
Claims 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel.
Regarding claim 40, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, but does not teach wherein the one or more channels comprise a total area that is no greater than 27% of an area of the outer surface of the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to cause the device of Patel to have one or more channels comprise a total area that is no greater than 27% of an area of the outer surface of the body since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distance from the prior art device” Gardner V TEC Syst, in. In the instant case the device would not operate differently with claimed area. Further Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed ranged merely stating “for example 27% of the sealing diameter facilitates venting gases”.
Regarding claim 42, Patel teaches the circuit end cap of claim 36, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more channels are configured to prevent disconnection of the circuit end cap from the breathing circuit component when a pressure in the breathing circuit component is 20kPa or less.
However, since the device of Patel is designed to provide pressure relief and states that a desired relief opening pressure can be easily achieved by simple modifications in the manufacturing process (Paragraph 13), it would have been obvious to modify the device of Patel so that prevents disconnection from the circuit when pressure is 20Kpa or less.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-33 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 30-33, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, but there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the device of Patel so that wherein the body comprises a plurality of channels, each channel of the plurality of channels extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body on an outside surface of the body, wherein the plurality of channels allow gases to vent from the breathing circuit component.
Regarding claim 35, Tsukada teaches the circuit end cap of claim 23, but there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the end cap of Tsukada to include comprising one or more ribs, the one or more ribs extending between an internal surface of the body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:00 pm MT.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights