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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim foreign priority to Application No. (63/289,053) filed on the December 13, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9, 13, and 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 3, "providing" should be "configured to provide”
Regarding Claim 1, line 5, "two" should be added before "prongs”
Regarding Claim 1, line 6, "a" should be added before “head”
Regarding Claim 2, line 3, "providing" should be "configured to provide”
Regarding Claim 2, line 5, "a" should be added before “nose”
Regarding Claim 9 and 24, line 5 and 9, "at least two" should be added before "fingers”
Regarding Claim 13 line 2, "," should be added before "said controller”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5, 6-8, 14, and 22-23 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.
Claim 4, 7, 22 cites the limitation "curvature" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure if it is the same curvature in claim 1, Examiner is suggests that it should be amended to add "a degree of" before "curvature”.
Claim 5 and 8 cites the limitation "curvature" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure if it is the same curvature in claim 1. Examiner is suggests that it should be amended to add "said degree of" before "curvature”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "degree of curvature", “threshold” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, "said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when at least one of said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when both said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature less than said threshold value" should read as –said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when at least one of said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature of at least one of said first and second degree of curvature is greater than said threshold value of the first degree and/or second degree of curvature, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when both said first and second sensors sense both said first and second degree of curvature less than said threshold value of the first and second said degree of curvatures—
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said power supply" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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) 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos et al. (US 20210138170 A1), hereafter as Karamolegkos, Narkiss et al. (US 20190076100 A1), hereafter as Narkiss, Kowshik et al. (US 10716637 B2), hereafter as Kowshik, and Harr (US 20110060284 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Karamolegkos discloses device (Fig. 2; 10) for controlling flow of gas from a gas source to a patient (para. 0024), said device comprising:
a nasal cannula (Fig. 2; 16; para. 0041, 104; Examiner notes: nasal cannula is taught as one of the option the mask could be) providing fluid communication between said gas source and said patient (para. 0024, 0041), a first sensor (18, 106, or 108; para. 0028), an actuator (Fig. 2; 15) engaged with said nasal cannula (patient interface 16) between said gas source (Fig. 4B; 19 or 11) and said first and second portions of said nasal cannula (para. 0024, 0029),
said actuator having a first configuration permitting flow of gas from said gas source through said nasal cannula to said first and second portions of said nasal cannula, and a second configuration preventing flow of gas from said gas source through said nasal cannula to said first and second portions of said nasal cannula (para. 0043; examiner notes: Karamolegkos teaches air pump is configured to control flow rate of the oxygen-enriched breathing gas being delivered to the nasal cavity of patient as determined by output signals/commands received from computer system); a controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24) in communication with said first sensor and said actuator (para. 0043), said controller adapted to receive said first signals from said first sensor and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations (para. 0043).
Karamolegkos does not specifically teach said nasal cannula including two prongs adapted to fit within nostrils of said patient, a first and a second portion of said nasal cannula in fluid communication with said prongs being adapted to fit respectively between a first and a second ear and head of said patient; a first sensor (18, 106, or 108; para. 0028) positioned on said first portion of said nasal cannula.
However, Narkiss teaches said nasal cannula including two prongs adapted to fit within nostrils of said patient (Fig. 8A; 8B), a first and a second portion of said nasal cannula (810) in fluid communication with said prongs being adapted to fit respectively between a first and a second ear and head of said patient (See. Fig. 8A; 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mask of Karamolegkos to include the said nasal cannula including two prongs adapted to fit within nostrils of said patient, a first and a second portion of said nasal cannula in fluid communication with said prongs being adapted to fit respectively between a first and a second ear and head of said patient as taught by Narkiss for the purpose of medical mask all contemplates delivery of the oxygen-enriched breathing gas, nasal cannula are known to be more comfortable and easier to tolerate and allow patient to speak easily.
Modified Karamolegkos does not said first sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said first portion of said nasal cannula and generate first signals indicative thereof (examiner notes: this limitation is functional; "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); Examiner is interpreting that a “degree” of curvature BRI is any type of curve in the tubing but more specifically occlusion).
However, Kowshik teaches sensor (Fig. 2; shape sensor 222; can be at one or more segment on the body 216) that senses a degree of curvature (shape, position , orientation) and positioned on the tube (Col. 8 lines 36-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Karamolegkos to include the shape sensor that is positioned on the band as taught by Kowshik for the purpose of for determining the shape of at least a portion of the tube (Col. 8 lines 36-65) that can identify kinking or any straining of the tube.
Modified Karamolegkos does not specifically disclose said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value.
However, Harr in the field of pumps teaches controller (Fig.3; 204) adjusting said actuator (Fig. 3; 206) to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature (Examiner notes: occlusion meaning there is some curvature in the tube) greater than a threshold value (para. 0020), said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value (para. 0020; If the sensed current exceeds a maximum threshold, then the controller 204 determines that there is an undesired occlusion in the tube 108 and may alert the user or patient via the user interface 104, provide an alarm, or take some other action (e.g., cease pumping), or combination of actions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Modified Karamolegkos to include the controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value as taught by Harr for the purpose of determining the extent of an occlusion by comparing the sensed current to multiple thresholds and cease pumping or combination of actions (para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein said controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24; 0024, 0043-0044, 0054-0058) is adapted to generate an alarm signal (para. 0046) when said first sensor (para. 0043) senses said degree of curvature (222; Kowshik) less than said threshold value (para. 0020; Harr).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1,
a second sensor (Fig. 3; 222; Kowshki) positioned on said second portion of said nasal cannula (Kowshki teaches that the sensor can me at one or more segments of the body), said second sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature (controller 204; Harr) of said second portion of said nasal cannula and generate second signals indicative thereof (para. 0020; Harr).
Modified Karamolegkos does not disclose further comprising, said controller being in communication with said second sensor, said controller adapted to receive both said first and second signals respectively from said first and second sensors and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations, said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when at least one of said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when both said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature less than said threshold value.
However, Harr in the field of pumps teaches controller (Fig.3; 204) adjusting said actuator (Fig. 3; 206) to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature (Examiner notes: a occlusion meaning there is some curvature in the tube) greater than a threshold value (para. 0020), said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value (para. 0020; If the sensed current exceeds a maximum threshold, then the controller 204 determines that there is an undesired occlusion in the tube 108 and may alert the user or patient via the user interface 104, provide an alarm, or take some other action (e.g., cease pumping), or combination of actions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second sensor (second 222) adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said second portion of said nasal cannula and generate second signals indicative thereof, said controller being in communication with said second sensor, said controller adapted to receive both said first and second signals respectively from said first and second sensors to since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would want another sense to be able to sense the other side of nasal cannula in case there is occlusion on either side.
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, further comprising a wireless communication system (Fig. 2; 21) providing communication between said controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24; Karamolegkos) and said first sensor (18, 106, and/or 108) and said actuator (Fig. 2; 15; para. 0024, 0043; specifically para. 0046; Karamolegkos).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, further comprising a power supply (para. 0029; Karamolegkos) electrically connected to said first sensor (Fig. 2; 18), said actuator (Fig. 2; 15) and said controller (Fig. 2; 22) for providing electrical power thereto (para. 0029-0030).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein said power supply comprises a battery (para. 0029).
Claim(s) 2, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos et al. (US 20210138170 A1), hereafter as Karamolegkos, Kowshik et al. (US 10716637 B2), hereafter as Kowshik, and Harr (US 20110060284 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Karamolegkos discloses a device (Fig. 2; system 10) for controlling flow of gas from a gas source to a patient (para. 0024), said device comprising: a tube (para. 0041; hose 17) providing fluid communication between said gas source and said patient (para. 0041); an adapter (Fig. 4B; 27) in fluid communication with said tube, said adapter engagable with a mouth and/or nose of said patient (Through 25 and patient interface 16; Fig. 4B; para. 0024, 0041); a band extending from said adapter and positionable surrounding a head of said patient for attaching said adapter thereto (para. 0041; face mask have bands that surround the head best shown in Fig. 4B); a first sensor (106; para. 0029), an actuator (Fig. 2; air pump 15) engaged with said tube between said gas source (Fig. 4B; 19 or 11) and said adapter, said actuator having a first configuration permitting flow of gas from said gas source through said tube to said adapter, and a second configuration preventing flow of gas from said gas source through said tube to said adapter (para. 0043; examiner notes: Karamolegkos teaches air pump is configured to control flow rate of the oxygen-enriched breathing gas being delivered to the nasal cavity of patient as determined by output signals/commands received from computer system); a controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24) in communication with said first sensor and said actuator (par. 0043), said controller adapted to receive said first signals from said first sensor and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations (para. 0024, 0043).
Karamolegkos does not specifically teach that the first sensor is positioned on said band, said first sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said band and generate first signals indicative thereof.
However, Kowshik teaches sensor (Fig. 2; shape sensor 222; can be at one or more segment on the body 216) that senses a degree of curvature (shape, position , orientation) and positioned on the tube (Col. 8 lines 36-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Karamolegkos to include the shape sensor that is positioned on the band as taught by Kowshik for the purpose of for determining the shape of at least a portion of the tube (Col. 8 lines 36-65) that can identify kinking or any straining of the tube.
Modified Karamolegkos does not specifically disclose said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value.
However, Harr in the field of pumps teaches controller (Fig.3; 204) adjusting said actuator (Fig. 3; 206) to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature (Examiner notes: a occlusion meaning there is some curvature in the tube) greater than a threshold value (para. 0020), said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value (para. 0020; If the sensed current exceeds a maximum threshold, then the controller 204 determines that there is an undesired occlusion in the tube 108 and may alert the user or patient via the user interface 104, provide an alarm, or take some other action (e.g., cease pumping), or combination of actions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Modified Karamolegkos to include the controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value as taught by Harr for the purpose of determining the extent of an occlusion by comparing the sensed current to multiple thresholds and cease pumping or combination of actions (para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein said adapter (Fig. 4Bl 27, 25, and 16; para. 0041) comprises a mask or nasal pillows (para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein said controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24; para. 0046) is adapted to generate an alarm signal (para. 0046) when said first sensor (18, 106, or 108) senses said degree of curvature ( using the shape sensor 222; Kowshki)less than said threshold value (para. 0024; 0041-0043).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos, Narkiss , Kowshik, Har. As applied to claim 1, in view of Cappelleri et al. (US 20180132891 A1), hereafter as Cappelleri.
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein said actuator (15).
Modified Karamolegkos does not disclose a servo motor having a rotatable shaft; a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said nasal cannula being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said nasal cannula extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said nasal cannula so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough.
However, Cappelleri teaches a servo motor (Fig. 8; 54 and 58) having a rotatable shaft (26); a head (50) mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers (either side of 54, ) extending therefrom (Fig. 8), said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween (in-between the two fingers of 54), said tube being received within said slot ( 26 and 28 shown in Fig. 8), said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said tube extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said fluid therethrough(para. 0020), and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said tube so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough(Fig. 8; para. 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nasal cannula, actuator changing from first configuration to second configuration of Modified Karamolegkos to include a servo motor having a rotatable shaft; a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said nasal cannula being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said nasal cannula extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said nasal cannula so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough as taught by Cappelleri for the purpose of or selectively providing or releasing tension when needed (para. 0030) to stop or permit flow to the patient.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos, Narkiss, Kowshki, and Harr, as applied to claim 1, in view of Soifer (US 20210259576 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein said controller (Fig. 2; 22 and 24) comprise one or more processors (para. 0024).
Modified Karamolegkos does not specifically disclose that the processor/controller is a microprocessor.
However, Soifer teaches a microprocessor (para. 0094, 0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Karamolegkos to include the microprocessor as taught by Soifer as they are known in the art to performing at least one computational process and can be used in mechanical, optical, fluidic, and quantum technologies. In addition, embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced within a general-purpose computer or in any other circuits or systems (para. 0146).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos, Narkiss, Kowshki, and Harr, as applied to claim 1, in view of Hofmann et al. (US 20180360479 A1), hereafter as Hofmann.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 1,
Modified Karamolegkos does not further comprising a first electrical conductor connecting said controller to said first sensor and a second electrical conductor connecting said controller to said actuator.
However, Hofmann teaches a electrical conductor connecting said controller (13) to said first sensor (s1, s2, s3) and a second electrical conductor connecting said controller to said actuator (para. 0089, 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Modified Karamolegkos to include the a first electrical conductor connecting said controller to said first sensor and a second electrical conductor connecting said controller to said actuator as taught by Hofmann for the purpose of transmitting data from a sensor to the control unit and precisely tracking the position (para. 0109) and controlling the system when a curvature is detected.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karamolegkos, Kowshik, Har. As applied to claim 2, in view of Cappelleri et al. (US 20180132891 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Karamolegkos discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein said actuator (15).
Modified Karamolegkos does not disclose a servo motor having a rotatable shaft; a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said nasal cannula being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said nasal cannula extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said nasal cannula so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough.
However, Cappelleri teaches a servo motor (Fig. 8; 54 and 58) having a rotatable shaft (26); a head (50) mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers (either side of 54, ) extending therefrom (Fig. 8), said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween (in-between the two fingers of 54), said tube being received within said slot ( 26 and 28 shown in Fig. 8), said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said tube extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said fluid therethrough(para. 0020), and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said tube so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough(Fig. 8; para. 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the actuator of Modified Karamolegkos to include a servo motor having a rotatable shaft; a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said nasal cannula being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said nasal cannula extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said fingers impinge on said nasal cannula so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough as taught by Cappelleri for the purpose of or selectively providing or releasing tension when needed (para. 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
During a telephone conversation conducted on September 17, 2026, Examiner presented to Jospeh Anderson amendments, below, to put the Application in condition for allowance. The purposed amendments were declined as Applicant wanted an Office Action sent out.
Replace Claim 1 with
“A device for controlling flow of gas from a gas source to a patient, said device comprising:
a nasal cannula configured to provide fluid communication between said gas source and said patient, said nasal cannula including two prongs adapted to fit within nostrils of said patient, a first and a second portion of said nasal cannula in fluid communication with said two prongs being adapted to fit respectively between a first and a second ear and a head of said patient;
a first sensor positioned on said first portion of said nasal cannula, said first sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said first portion of said nasal cannula and generate first signals indicative thereof;
an actuator engaged with said nasal cannula between said gas source and said first and second portions of said nasal cannula, said actuator having a first configuration permitting flow of gas from said gas source through said nasal cannula to said first and second portions of said nasal cannula, and a second configuration preventing flow of gas from said gas source through said nasal cannula to said first and second portions of said nasal cannula;
a controller in communication with said first sensor and said actuator, said controller adapted to receive said first signals from said first sensor and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations, said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value;
wherein said first sensor comprises a resistive flexible sensor having an electrical resistance which changes in response to a change in said degree of curvature of said first sensor.”
Replace Claim 2 with:
“A device for controlling flow of gas from a gas source to a patient, said device comprising:
a tube configured to provide fluid communication between said gas source and said patient;
an adapter in fluid communication with said tube, said adapter engagable with a mouth and/or a nose of said patient;
a band extending from said adapter and positionable surrounding a head of said patient for attaching said adapter thereto; a first sensor positioned on said band, said first sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said band and generate first signals indicative thereof;
an actuator engaged with said tube between said gas source and said adapter, said actuator having a first configuration permitting flow of gas from said gas source through said tube to said adapter, and a second configuration preventing flow of gas from said gas source through said tube to said adapter;
a controller in communication with said first sensor and said actuator, said controller adapted to receive said first signals from said first sensor and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations, said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature is greater than a threshold value, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when said first sensor senses said degree of curvature less than said threshold value;
wherein said first sensor comprises a resistive flexible sensor having an electrical resistance which changes in response to a change in a degree of curvature of said first sensor.”
Cancel Claim 4.
Replace Claim 5 with: “The device according to claim 1, wherein said electrical resistance increases with an increase in said degree of curvature of said first sensor.”
Replace Claim 6 with:
The device according to claim 1, further comprising a second sensor positioned on said second portion of said nasal cannula, said second sensor adapted to sense a degree of curvature of said second portion of said nasal cannula and generate second signals indicative thereof, said controller being in communication with said second sensor, said controller adapted to receive both said first and second signals respectively from said first and second sensors and adjust said actuator between said first and second configurations, said controller adjusting said actuator to said first configuration when at least one of said first and second sensors sense said degree of curvature of at least one of said first and second degree of curvature is greater than said threshold value of the first degree and/or second degree of curvature, said controller adjusting said actuator to said second configuration when both said first and second sensors sense both said first and second degree of curvature less than said threshold value of the first and second said degree of curvatures.”
Replace Claim 7 with:
“The device according to claim 6, wherein said second sensor comprises a resistive flexible sensor having an electrical resistance which changes in response to a change in a degree of curvature of said second sensor.”
Replace Claim 8 with:
“The device according to claim 7, wherein said electrical resistance of said second sensor increases with an increase in in said degree of curvature of said second sensor.”
Replace Claim 9 with:“The device according to claim 1, wherein said actuator comprises:
a servo motor having a rotatable shaft;
a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said at least two fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said nasal cannula being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said nasal cannula extend through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said at least two fingers impinge on said nasal cannula so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough.”
Replace Claim 14 with:
“The device according to claim 13, wherein said power supply comprises a battery.
Cancel Claim 22
Replace Claim 23 with:
“The device according to claim 2, wherein said electrical resistance increases with an increase in said degree of curvature of said first sensor.”
Replace Claim 24 with:
“The device according to claim 2, wherein said actuator comprises:
a servo motor having a rotatable shaft;
a head mounted on said shaft, said head having at least two fingers extending therefrom, said at least two fingers being in spaced apart relation and defining a slot therebetween, said tube being received within said slot, said head being rotatable between said first configuration wherein said tube extends through said slot without deformation thereby permitting flow of said gas therethrough, and said second configuration, wherein said at least two fingers impinge on said tube so as to form a kink therein thereby preventing flow of said gas therethrough.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Other prior art of particular note include:
Holder (US 10912904 B2) teaches nasal cannula an alarm system and stopping flow of oxygen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
MAAP A. ELLABIB
Examiner
Art Unit 3785
/M.A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
