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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 05/01/24. No claims have been amended, new claims 16-28 have been added, and claims 1-15 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 16-28 are presently pending in this application.
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 16-28 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.
In claim 16, lines 31-32 the limitation “a gas flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the gas outlet of the downstream module” is unclear since this limitation is already claimed in lines 21-22 of claim16. Is this the same or different gas flow path?
In claim 23, line 3 the limitation “a first gas delivery flow path” is confusing if it is the same first gas flow path in claim 16 or an additional gas flow path.
In claim 26, lines 2 and 3 the limitations “a first non-human animal” and “a second non-human animal” are unclear if these are part of the plurality of non-human animals or additional to those in claim 16.
In claim 27, lines 3-4 the limitations “at least one non-human animal” are unclear if these are part of the plurality of non-human animals or additional to those in claim 16.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 20-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jaeger (5,297,502) in view of Bernstein (4,860,741).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4 of Jaeger.
With respect to claim 16, Jaeger discloses a modular gas delivery system (fig 4) for delivering gas to a plurality of non- human animals simultaneously (see col. 3, lines 56-60), the gas delivery system comprising an upstream module (see annotated fig 4 of Jaeger) comprising a gas inlet (34, fig 1); a downstream module (see annotated fig 4 of Jaeger) comprising a gas outlet (214, fig 1); a gas flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the gas outlet of the downstream module (see 245 and 250, fig 4, ) and wherein the modular gas delivery system is provided with a plurality of modules (see col. 10, lines 1-2), but is silent regarding an intermediate module assembly comprising a first intermediate module, the first intermediate module comprising a first gas delivery outlet, and a second intermediate module, the second intermediate module comprising a second gas delivery outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
541
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1 of Bernstein.
However, Bernstein teaches a modular gas delivery system (fig 4) for delivering gas to a plurality of non- human animals simultaneously (see col. 1, lines 6-8), the gas delivery system comprising an upstream module (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), a downstream module (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), an intermediate module assembly (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein) comprising a first intermediate module (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), the first intermediate module comprising a first gas delivery outlet (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), and a second intermediate module (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), the second intermediate module comprising a second gas delivery outlet (see annotated fig 1 of Bernstein), wherein the intermediate module assembly is engageable with, and disengagable from, the upstream module, and engageable with, and disengagable from, the downstream module, wherein the first intermediate module is engageable with, and disengagable from, the upstream module, wherein the second intermediate module is engageable with, and disengagable from, the upstream module (see col. 2, lines 20-24), wherein the upstream module, the downstream module, are configured to be assembled into a first system configuration in which the upstream module is upstream of, and engaged with, the intermediate module assembly, the intermediate module assembly is upstream of, and engaged with, the downstream module, a first gas delivery flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the first gas delivery outlet of the first intermediate module, wherein the upstream module, the downstream module, and the intermediate module assembly are further configured to be assembled into a second system configuration in which: the upstream module is upstream of, and engaged with, the intermediate module assembly, the intermediate module assembly is upstream of, and engaged with, the downstream module, and a second gas delivery flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the second gas delivery outlet of the second intermediate module, and wherein the second system configuration is a parallel system configuration and, in the second system configuration, the first intermediate module and the second intermediate module are arranged in parallel such that the second gas delivery flow path does not extend through the first intermediate module (note, the device is modular therefore the upstream, downstream, and intermediate modules are capable of being engaged and disengaged from one another and the flow paths from inlet to first and or second outlet flow up through the middle pipe 11 then out the respective outlet as seen in fig 1 and col. 2, lines 20-24).
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 modular gas delivery system of Jaeger to include a plurality of intermediate modules identical to the upstream and downstream modules as taught by Bernstein for adapting the height of the device dependent on the requirement needed and for easier cleaning (see col. 3, lines 26-30 of Bernstein).
With respect to claim 17, the modified Jaeger shows the second intermediate module is engageable with, and disengagable from, the first intermediate module, and wherein the second intermediate module is structurally identical to the first intermediate module such that the second intermediate module and the first intermediate module are interchangeable in the modular gas delivery system (after the modification by Bernstein the modular design allow for the number of intermediate portions to be adjusted and each section is identical).
With respect to claim 20, the modified Jaeger shows in the first system configuration, the gas flow path extends through the intermediate module assembly (note in fig 4 of Jaeger the flow path travels from the inlet to the outlet and out to the non-human animal (arrows 281) and after the modification by Bernstein to provide an intermediate module the flow path would travel through and out to the non-human animal).
With respect to claim 21, the modified Jaeger shows the first intermediate module comprises a first additional gas delivery outlet (see ‘additional outlets’ in annotated fig 4 of Jaeger that would be in the intermediate modules after the modification by Berstein).
With respect to claim 22, the modified Jaeger shows in the first system configuration, the first additional gas delivery outlet is aligned with the first gas delivery outlet in a longitudinal direction (see annotated fig 4 of Jaeger and the tubular configuration with multiple outlets allow for outlets to be aligned).
With respect to claim 23, Berstein discloses in the second system configuration, a first gas delivery flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the first gas delivery outlet of the first intermediate module (the first flow path is from the inlet to the first gas delivery outlet and would remain the same path when additional intermediate modules are added).
With respect to claim 24, Berstein discloses the modular gas delivery system is configured to be assembled into a series system configuration in which the first intermediate module and the second intermediate module are arranged in series (see the configuration of the module in fig 4 of Jager with the stacked configuration).
With respect to claim 25, Berstein discloses in the second system configuration, the first gas delivery outlet is aligned with the second gas delivery outlet in a longitudinal direction (the tubular configuration of the inner pipe 100 with multiple radial outlets allow for the flow paths to be longitudinal in the intermediate modules after modification by Bernstein).
With respect to claim 28, Berstein discloses a method of using a modular gas delivery system according to claim 16 (see claim 16 above), the method comprising engaging the upstream module and the downstream module with the intermediate module assembly such that: the upstream module is upstream of, and engaged with, the intermediate module assembly, the intermediate module assembly is upstream of, and engaged with, the downstream module, the gas flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the gas outlet of the downstream module, and the first gas delivery flow path is formed from the gas inlet of the upstream module to the first gas delivery outlet of the first intermediate module (see claim 16 above and col. 9, lines 9-30 of Jaeger and col. 2, lines 39-58 of Bernstein).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger and Bernstein as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pyeon (2022/0280735).
With respect to claim 18, the modified Jaeger shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks an exhaust unit engageable with, and disengagable from, the downstream module and which, in use, provides suction downstream of the gas outlet.
However, Pyeon teaches a modular gas delivery system (100, fig 1) comprising an exhaust unit (discharge pump; 300, fig 1) engageable with, and disengagable from, a module connected to Goutlet in fig 1) and which, in use, provides suction downstream of a gas outlet (see [0054]).
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 downstream module of the modified Jaeger to include an exhaust unit as taught by Pyeon so as to remove residual gas and discharge to the outside (see [0054] of Pyeon).
Claim(s) 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger and Bernstein as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Habashi (WO2021195449).
With respect to claim 19, the modified Jaeger shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks the downstream module further comprises a pressure adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure in the system, the pressure adjustment mechanism comprising a pressure adjustment component defining an opening, and wherein the pressure adjustment component is moveable so as to vary a size of the opening.
However, Habashi teaches a modular ventilation device (fig 1 and [016]) comprising a pressure adjustment mechanism (pressure release valve G, fig 1) configured to adjust a pressure in the modular ventilation device (see [042-43]) the pressure adjustment mechanism comprising a pressure adjustment component (valve) defining an opening (valve opens and closes [043]), and wherein the pressure adjustment component is moveable so as to vary a size of the opening (the valve can open and close to varying degrees).
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 downstream module of the modified Jaeger to include a pressure adjustment mechanism as taught by Habashi so as to control the pressure to avoid overpressure causing injury to the patient.
With respect to claim 27, the modified Jaeger shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks a pressure adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a pressure in the modular gas delivery system during use of the modular gas delivery system to deliver gas to at least one non-human animal.
However, Habashi teaches a modular ventilation device (fig 1 and [016]) comprising a pressure adjustment mechanism (pressure release valve G, fig 1) configured to adjust a pressure in the modular ventilation device during use of the modular gas delivery system to deliver gas to at least one non-human animal (see [042-43]).
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 system of the modified Jaeger to include a pressure adjustment mechanism as taught by Habashi so as to control the pressure to avoid overpressure causing injury to the patient.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger and Bernstein as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Anderson (2004/0216737).
With respect to claim 26, the modified Jaeger shows delivering gas to the non-human animal by nasal delivery (see fig 1 and col. 11, lines 48-67 of Jaeger) but lacks simultaneously delivering gas to a first non-human animal by intra- tracheal delivery and to a second non-human animal by nasal delivery.
However, Anderson teaches a gas delivery system (1, fig 1) configured to simultaneously deliver gas to a first non-human animal by intra- tracheal delivery and to a second non-human animal by nasal delivery (see [0071]).
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 system of the modified Jaeger to include both intratracheal and nasal delivery as taught by Anderson so as to allow for administering different gases and/or for various procedures (see [0071] of Anderson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LaBauve (4,520,808), Spengler (4,528,941), Cannon (4,721,060), and Lee (10,716,653) are cited to show additional non-animal gas delivery systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights