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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 05-28-2024. As directed, claims 1-20 are presently pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral 4 indicating a patient interface at page 4, lines 11-12.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character 8 has been used to designate both “the end” at page 4, line 18 and “the lugs” at page 4, line 30.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 13-15, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 2, it is suggested that a colon be added following “comprising”.
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “a respiration hose” be replaced with “the respiration hose” as the element was already introduced at line 1.
At claim 1, line 6, it is suggested that commas be added before and after “on its inner side” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 1, lines 6-7, it is suggested that “an external diameter” be replaced with “the external diameter” as the element was already introduced in lines 4-5.
At claim 5, line 1, it is suggested that commas be added before and after “on its inner wall” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 8, line 1, it is suggested that commas be added before and after “on its inner wall” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 13, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the outer wall of the connecting socket” be replaced with “an outer wall of the connecting socket” as the only outer wall previously introduced in claim 1, line 8 was an outer wall of the lugs.
At claim 13, line 2, it is suggested that “the” be added before “rotary sleeve” for clarity.
At claim 13, lines 2-3, it is suggested that “the” be added before “connecting socket” for clarity.
At claim 14, lines 2-3, it is suggested that “against which end stop the connecting socket butts” be replaced with “wherein the connecting socket is configured to butt against the end stop” for clarity.
At claim 15, line 2, it is suggested that “the external diameter” be replaced with “an external diameter” as only the external diameter of the connecting socket was introduced at claim 1, lines 4-5.
At claim 15, line 2, it is suggested that “the end” be replaced with “an end” as the end has not yet been introduced.
At claim 17, line 2, it is suggested that a colon be added following “comprising”.
At claim 17, line 3, it is suggested that “a respiration hose” be replaced with “the respiration hose” as the element was already introduced at line 1.
At claim 17, line 7, it is suggested that “which extensions” be replaced with “wherein the extensions” for clarity
At claim 17, line 7, it is suggested that commas be added before and after “on its inner side” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 17, line 8, it is suggested that “an external diameter” be replaced with “the external diameter” as the element was already introduced in lines 4-5.
At claim 19, line 1, it is suggested that commas be added before and after “on its inner wall” for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “latching elements” in claims 1 and 17, which are interpreted relative to the instant specification at page 4, lines 24-27 to be respectively, an undercut/hook and a bevel/step.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 1, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “are configured to be” and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the connecting socket tapers behind the step and has an external diameter which is smaller than the external diameter of the connecting socket” which renders the claim indefinite because it is presently not clear how the external diameter of the connecting socket can be smaller than itself.
It is suggested that the claim be amended to mirror the language of claim 12, in order to clarify that the connecting socket has multiple different external diameters.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “are configured to be” and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chang (US 2015/0157825).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a device (10+20+210) for connecting a patient interface (300) and a respiration hose (200) (paragraph 13, lines 1-6; paragraph 14, lines 1-15; Figs. 1-3), wherein the device (10+20) comprises:
a connecting socket (10) configured for being connected to the patient interface (300) (paragraph 14, lines 1-5, and Fig. 1; note that paragraph 13, lines 4-5 describe tube segment 120 as part of mask 300) and a rotary sleeve (20) configured to be connected to a respiration hose (200) having a respiration hose coupling (connection point on hose 200 for element 210) (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; paragraph 16, lines 1-8; Figs. 1-2; note paragraph 11, lines 1-4 for the interference fitting between components, and paragraphs 19-20 discussing the assembly/attachment and disassembly/detachment of 20 from each of 10 and 200, where 20 is understood to be capable of rotation relative to 10 by virtue of its disconnection at locking components 22, and per paragraph 19, lines 12-14, rotation between 20 and 200 is possible), the connecting socket (10) being insertable at least partially into the rotary sleeve (20) by having an external diameter which is smaller than an internal diameter of the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 19, lines 10-12; Fig. 3, note that portion 21 of element 20 sleeves element 10, and paragraph 11, lines 1-4 describe an interference fit between components), the rotary sleeve (20) comprising on its inner side latching elements (223) that engage in latching elements (13+14) on an external diameter of the connecting socket (10) (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3), the rotary sleeve (20) having symmetrical extensions (22) that are lugs comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; see Figs. 1-3 where each of 22 are symmetrically arranged on opposite sides of 20, and each include a one-piece, unitary outer wall), and
wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling (210) and the rotary sleeve (20) without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10), the lugs (18) can be pressed against the connecting socket (10) to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10) when pulling the respiratory hose coupling (210) off the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 11, lines 1-4, note that the components are each interference fitted; paragraph 17, lines 1-3 indicate that each of 10, 20, and 200 are separable; paragraph 19, lines 5-14, note that 200 is movable with respect to 20 when 20 is locked with 10).
In the alternative, if it is determined that Chang does not specifically disclose that the lugs are comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall, then:
Given that the Courts have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.04, V(B)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lugs of Chang to be constructed from a one-piece, unitary outer wall as a matter of obvious engineering choice to reduce the overall number of working pieces associated with the lugs and reduce manufacturing complexity and material cost.
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10) is insertable with at least 30% of its length into the rotary sleeve (20) (see Fig. 3, where socket 10 is sleeved on nearly its entire length by larger diameter section 212 and locking components 22 of the sleeve 20; note MPEP 2125 I, where drawings can be relied upon for what they would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan).
In the alternative, if it determined that Chang’s illustrations cannot be properly relied on for the claimed percentage of intrusion length, then:
Given that Applicant places no criticality on the claimed intrusion percentage (see the instant specification at page 5, lines 18-22, where the claimed percentages are disclosed, but there is no further indication that any of the values produce an unexpected result), because modifying Chang to have the claimed intrusion percentage would not appear to destroy the intended purpose of the connection device of Chang, and further still because the Courts have 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 distinct from the prior art device” (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04, IV(A)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve of Chang such that the connecting socket is insertable with at least 30% of its length into the rotary sleeve in order to facilitate the interference fit between the two components.
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10) is insertable with at least 60% of its length into the rotary sleeve (20) (see Fig. 3, where socket 10 is sleeved on nearly its entire length by larger diameter section 212 and locking components 22 of the sleeve 20; note MPEP 2125 I, where drawings can be relied upon for what they would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan).
In the alternative, if it determined that Chang’s illustrations cannot be properly relied on for the claimed percentage of intrusion length, then:
Given that Applicant places no criticality on the claimed intrusion percentage (see the instant specification at page 5, lines 18-22, where the claimed percentages are disclosed, but there is no further indication that any of the values produce an unexpected result), because modifying Chang to have the claimed intrusion percentage would not appear to destroy the intended purpose of the connection device of Chang, and further still because the Courts have 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 distinct from the prior art device” (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04, IV(A)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve of Chang such that the connecting socket is insertable with at least 60% of its length into the rotary sleeve in order to facilitate the interference fit between the two components.
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10) is insertable with at least 80% of its length into the rotary sleeve (20) (see Fig. 3, where socket 10 is sleeved on nearly its entire length by larger diameter section 212 and locking components 22 of the sleeve 20; note MPEP 2125 I, where drawings can be relied upon for what they would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan).
In the alternative, if it determined that Chang’s illustrations cannot be properly relied on for the claimed percentage of intrusion length, then:
Given that Applicant places no criticality on the claimed intrusion percentage (see the instant specification at page 5, lines 18-22, where the claimed percentages are disclosed, but there is no further indication that any of the values produce an unexpected result), because modifying Chang to have the claimed intrusion percentage would not appear to destroy the intended purpose of the connection device of Chang, and further still because the Courts have 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 distinct from the prior art device” (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04, IV(A)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve of Chang such that the connecting socket is insertable with at least 80% of its length into the rotary sleeve in order to facilitate the interference fit between the two components.
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the rotary sleeve (20) comprises on its inner wall a stop (213) for the connecting socket (10) (paragraph 16, lines 1-8; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the device (10+20+210) further comprises a respiration hose coupling (210) having an internal diameter which is greater than an external diameter of the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 16, lines 1-3; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the lugs (22) comprise on their inner wall an undercut or latching portion (223) which serves for the latching to the connecting socket (10) (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10), for latching to the rotary sleeve (20), comprises a circumferential bevel or a step (14) in its outer wall (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10) tapers behind the step (14) and has an external diameter which is smaller than the external diameter of the connecting socket (10) (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 15, lines 1-5, and note that 14 projects outwardly from 10, creating a larger external diameter on 10 where 14 is attached verses on either side of the projection 14).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses the device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Chang discloses wherein the lugs (22) reach with the undercut (223) over a step (14) in the outer wall of the connecting socket (10) to thereby form a snap joint between rotary sleeve (20) and connecting socket (10) (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein an axial displacement between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10) is prevented by an end stop (213) in the rotary sleeve (20), against which end stop (213) the connecting socket (10) butts (paragraph 19, lines 1-5; Fig. 3, note that 10 is prevented from moving beyond 213 in a direction towards hose 200).
Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein two lugs (22) are present (paragraph 14, lines 11-13; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses a device (10+20+210) for connecting a patient interface (300) and a respiration hose (200) (paragraph 13, lines 1-6; paragraph 14, lines 1-15; Figs. 1-3), wherein the device (10+20) comprises:
a connecting socket (10) configured for being connected to the patient interface (300) (paragraph 14, lines 1-5, and Fig. 1; note that paragraph 13, lines 4-5 describe tube segment 120 as part of mask 300) and a rotary sleeve (20) configured to be connected to a respiration hose (200) (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; paragraph 16, lines 1-8; Figs. 1-2; note paragraph 11, lines 1-4 for the interference fitting between components, and paragraphs 19-20 discussing the assembly/attachment and disassembly/detachment of 20 from each of 10 and 200, where 20 is understood to be capable of rotation relative to 10 by virtue of its disconnection at locking components 22, and per paragraph 19, lines 12-14, rotation between 20 and 200 is possible), the connecting socket (10) being insertable at least partially into the rotary sleeve (20) by having an external diameter which is smaller than an internal diameter of the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 19, lines 10-12; Fig. 3, note that portion 21 of element 20 sleeves element 10, and paragraph 11, lines 1-4 describe an interference fit between components), the rotary sleeve (20) comprising symmetrical extensions (22) that are lugs comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; see Figs. 1-3 where each of 22 are symmetrically arranged on opposite sides of 20, and each include a one-piece, unitary outer wall), which extensions have on their inner wall latching elements (223) that engage in latching elements (13+14) on an external diameter of the connecting socket (10) (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3), and
wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling (210) and the rotary sleeve (20) without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10), the lugs (18) can be pressed against the connecting socket (10) to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10) when pulling the respiratory hose coupling (210) off the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 11, lines 1-4, note that the components are each interference fitted; paragraph 17, lines 1-3 indicate that each of 10, 20, and 200 are separable; paragraph 19, lines 5-14, note that 200 is movable with respect to 20 when 20 is locked with 10).
In the alternative, if it is determined that Chang does not specifically disclose that the lugs are comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall, then:
Given that the Courts have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.04, V(B)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lugs of Chang to be constructed from a one-piece, unitary outer wall as a matter of obvious engineering choice to reduce the overall number of working pieces associated with the lugs and reduce manufacturing complexity and material cost.
Regarding claim 18, Chang discloses the device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the device (10+20+210) further comprises a respiration hose coupling (210) having an internal diameter which is greater than an external diameter of the rotary sleeve (20) (paragraph 16, lines 1-3; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Chang discloses the device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the lugs (22) comprise on their inner wall an undercut or latching portion (223) which serves for the latching to the connecting socket (10) (paragraph 15, lines 1-5; paragraph 19, lines 5-12; Figs. 1 and 3).
Claims 7, 9, 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2015/0157825), as applied to claims 1, 10, and 17 above, in view of Uehara (US 2010/0148500).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang fails to disclose wherein the rotary sleeve has a conical inner face.
However, Uehara teaches a rotating connector comprised of mated male/female parts (2 and 3) wherein the female part (3) includes a conical inner face for facilitating connection between the two parts (2 and 3) via a taper (paragraph 52, lines 4-15; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner face of the rotary sleeve and the outer face of the connecting socket to include conical surfaces, as taught by Uehara, for facilitating an interference fit between the two components by virtue of a taper.
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang fails to disclose wherein the external diameter of the connecting socket widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve.
However, Uehara teaches a rotating connector comprised of mated male/female parts (2 and 3), wherein the external diameter of the male part (2) widens conically in a direction away from the female part (3) for facilitating connection between the two parts (2 and 3) via a taper (paragraph 52, lines 4-15; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external diameter of the connecting socket such that it widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve, as taught by Uehara, for facilitating an interference fit between the two components by virtue of a taper.
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses the device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Chang further discloses wherein the connecting socket (10) tapers behind the step (14) and has an external diameter which is smaller than the external diameter of the connecting socket (10) (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 15, lines 1-5, and note that 14 projects outwardly from 10, creating a larger external diameter on 10 where 14 is attached verses on either side of the projection 14).
However, Chang fails to disclose a conically widened external diameter of the connecting socket.
However, Uehara teaches a rotating connector comprised of mated male/female parts (2 and 3) wherein the female part (3), wherein the external diameter of the male part (2) widens conically in a direction away from the female part (3) for facilitating connection between the two parts (2 and 3) via a taper (paragraph 52, lines 4-15; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external diameter of the connecting socket such that it widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve, as taught by Uehara, for facilitating an interference fit between the two components by virtue of a taper, thus creating a conically widened external diameter in the region of the step of Chang’s device.
Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chang fails to disclose wherein the rotary sleeve has a conically slightly thickening outer wall so that the external diameter of the rotary sleeve widens up to the end that faces the connecting socket.
However, Uehara teaches a rotating connector comprised of mated male/female parts (2 and 3), wherein the external diameter of the female part (3) has a conically slightly thickening outer wall so that its external diameter widens up to the end that faces the male part (2) for facilitating connection between the two parts (2 and 3) via a taper (paragraph 52, lines 4-15; Fig. 1, note the outer wall widening between the higher portion of 5 and the lower portion of 5 nearer reference numeral 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary sleeve to have a conically slightly thickening outer wall so that the external diameter of the rotary sleeve widens up to the end that faces the connecting socket, as taught by Uehara, for facilitating an interference fit between the two components by virtue of a taper.
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses the device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Chang fails to disclose wherein the external diameter of the connecting socket widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve.
However, Uehara teaches a rotating connector comprised of mated male/female parts (2 and 3) wherein the female part (3), wherein the external diameter of the male part (2) widens conically in a direction away from the female part (3) for facilitating connection between the two parts (2 and 3) via a taper (paragraph 52, lines 4-15; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external diameter of the connecting socket such that it widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve, as taught by Uehara, for facilitating an interference fit between the two components by virtue of a taper.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,444 to Eifler, in view of Chang (US 2015/0157825).
Regarding claim 1, Eifler discloses a device for connecting a patient interface and a respiration hose (claim 1, lines 1-2; or claim 14, lines 1-2), wherein the device comprises a connecting socket configured for being connected to the patient interface and a rotary sleeve configured to be connected to a respiration hose (claim 1, lines 2-5; or claim 14, lines 2-5), the connecting socket being insertable at least partially into the rotary sleeve by having an external diameter which is smaller than an internal diameter of the rotary sleeve (claim 1, lines 5-8; or claim 14, lines 5-8), the rotary sleeve comprising on its inner side latching elements that engage in latching elements on an external diameter of the connecting socket (claim 1, lines 8-10; or claim 14, lines 8-13), the rotary sleeve having symmetrical extensions that are lugs comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall (claim 1, lines 13-14; claim 14, lines 8-13).
Eifler fails to disclose wherein the respiration hose includes a respiration hose coupling, and wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling and the rotary sleeve without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket, the lugs can be pressed against the connecting socket to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket when pulling the respiratory hose coupling off the rotary sleeve.
However, Chang teaches a device (10+20+210) for connecting a patient interface (300) and a respiration hose (200) (paragraph 13, lines 1-6; paragraph 14, lines 1-15; Figs. 1-3), wherein the respiration hose (200) has a respiration hose coupling (210) (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; paragraph 16, lines 1-8; Figs. 1-2; note paragraph 11, lines 1-4 for the interference fitting between components, and paragraphs 19-20 discussing the assembly/attachment and disassembly/detachment of 20 from each of 10 and 200), and
wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling (210) and the analogous rotary sleeve (20) without releasing a connection between the analogous rotary sleeve (20) and the analogous connecting socket (10), the analogous lugs (18) can be pressed against the connecting socket (10) to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10) when pulling the respiratory hose coupling (210) off the rotary sleeve (20) in order to reversibly couple each of the components and provide a secure attachment between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve (paragraph 11, lines 1-4, note that the components are each interference fitted; paragraph 17, lines 1-3 indicate that each of 10, 20, and 200 are separable; paragraph 19, lines 5-14, note that 200 is movable with respect to 20 when 20 is locked with 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Eifler to include a respiration hose coupling, and wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling and the rotary sleeve without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket, the lugs can be pressed against the connecting socket to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket when pulling the respiratory hose coupling off the rotary sleeve, as taught by Chang, in order to reversibly couple each of the components and provide a secure attachment between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve.
Regarding claim 2, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket is insertable with at least 30 % of its length into the rotary sleeve (claim 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket is insertable with at least 60 % of its length into the rotary sleeve (claim 3, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket is insertable with at least 80 % of its length into the rotary sleeve (claim 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the rotary sleeve comprises on its inner wall a stop for the connecting socket (claim 5, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the device further comprises a respiration hose coupling having an internal diameter which is greater than an external diameter of the rotary sleeve (claim 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the rotary sleeve has a conical inner face (claim 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the lugs comprise on their inner wall an undercut or latching portion which serves for the latching to the connecting socket (claim 8, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the external diameter of the connecting socket widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve (claim 9, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket, for latching to the rotary sleeve, comprises a circumferential bevel or a step in its outer wall (claim 10, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket tapers behind the step and has an external diameter which is smaller than the external diameter of the connecting socket (claim 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the connecting socket tapers behind the step and has an external diameter which is smaller than a conically widened external diameter of the connecting socket (claim 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the lugs reach with the undercut over a step in the outer wall of the connecting socket to thereby form a snap joint between rotary sleeve and connecting socket (claim 12, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein an axial displacement between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket is prevented by an end stop in the rotary sleeve, against which end stop the connecting socket butts (claim 13, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the rotary sleeve has a conically slightly thickening outer wall so that the external diameter of the rotary sleeve widens up to the end that faces the connecting socket (see reliance on claim 14 above, and claim 18, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 16, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein two lugs are present (see claim 1, lines 13-14 or claim 14, lines 9-10, where use of the plural “lugs” indicates that at least two are present).
Regarding claim 17, Eifler discloses a device for connecting a patient interface and a respiration hose (claim 1, lines 1-2; or claim 14, lines 1-2), wherein the device comprises a connecting socket configured for being connected to the patient interface and a rotary sleeve configured to be connected to a respiration hose (claim 1, lines 2-5; or claim 14, lines 2-5), the connecting socket being insertable at least partially into the rotary sleeve by having an external diameter which is smaller than an internal diameter of the rotary sleeve (claim 1, lines 5-8; or claim 14, lines 5-8), the rotary sleeve comprising on its inner side latching elements that engage in latching elements on an external diameter of the connecting socket (claim 1, lines 8-10; or claim 14, lines 8-13), the rotary sleeve having symmetrical extensions that are lugs comprised of a one-piece, unitary outer wall (claim 1, lines 13-14; claim 14, lines 8-13).
Eifler fails to disclose wherein the respiration hose includes a respiration hose coupling, and wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling and the rotary sleeve without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket, the lugs can be pressed against the connecting socket to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket when pulling the respiratory hose coupling off the rotary sleeve.
However, Chang teaches a device (10+20+210) for connecting a patient interface (300) and a respiration hose (200) (paragraph 13, lines 1-6; paragraph 14, lines 1-15; Figs. 1-3), wherein the respiration hose (200) has a respiration hose coupling (210) (paragraph 14, lines 9-13; paragraph 16, lines 1-8; Figs. 1-2; note paragraph 11, lines 1-4 for the interference fitting between components, and paragraphs 19-20 discussing the assembly/attachment and disassembly/detachment of 20 from each of 10 and 200), and
wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling (210) and the analogous rotary sleeve (20) without releasing a connection between the analogous rotary sleeve (20) and the analogous connecting socket (10), the analogous lugs (18) can be pressed against the connecting socket (10) to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve (20) and the connecting socket (10) when pulling the respiratory hose coupling (210) off the rotary sleeve (20) in order to reversibly couple each of the components and provide a secure attachment between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve (paragraph 11, lines 1-4, note that the components are each interference fitted; paragraph 17, lines 1-3 indicate that each of 10, 20, and 200 are separable; paragraph 19, lines 5-14, note that 200 is movable with respect to 20 when 20 is locked with 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Eifler to include a respiration hose coupling, and wherein for releasing a connection between the respiration hose coupling and the rotary sleeve without releasing a connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket, the lugs can be pressed against the connecting socket to thereby secure the connection between the rotary sleeve and the connecting socket when pulling the respiratory hose coupling off the rotary sleeve, as taught by Chang, in order to reversibly couple each of the components and provide a secure attachment between the connecting socket and the rotary sleeve.
Regarding claim 18, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the device further comprises a respiration hose coupling having an internal diameter which is greater than an external diameter of the rotary sleeve (claim 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 17, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the lugs comprise on their inner wall an undercut or latching portion which serves for the latching to the connecting socket (claim 8, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Eifler in view of Chang disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eifler further discloses wherein the external diameter of the connecting socket widens conically in a direction away from the rotary sleeve (claim 9, lines 1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crumblin (US 2010/0083969) is cited for its use of a snap-fit connector detailed in paragraph 43.
Ho (US 2007/0277828) is cited for its two-piece connector as shown in Figure 10.
Fong (US 10,322,254) is cited for its multiple-piece connector as shown in Figure 3.
Sheffer (US 2013/0167841) is cited for its conical insertion portion as seen in Figure 2.
Smith (US 2011/0232645) is cited for its hose coupling and connection as seen in Figure 3.
Row (US 2010/0116272) is cited for its lugs as seen on lateral sides of the device in Figure 4.
Worley (US 2008/0041391) is cited for its lugs 177 as seen in Figures 4-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights