DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2682149A2 to Jorg et al. (hereinafter “Jorg”) in view of US20180243528A1 to Zapol et al. (hereinafter “Zapol”).
Regarding claim 1, Jorg discloses a system for delivery of oxygen from an oxygen source to nostrils of a user (Fig. 1 oxygen device 10), comprising:
a user interface device with a body portion including at least one inlet (Fig. 2 left and right sides of nose part 54) and at least one outlet (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46, nasal prongs as shown in Fig. 2), each outlet of the at least one outlet being configured for insertion into a corresponding nostril of the user (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46 are nasal prongs; Examiner notes each nasal prong is an outlet);
a flow tube (Fig. 1 breathing air hose 26; Examiner notes the tube extends from the nasal piece 46 down into the respiratory gas source 14) having an inlet (Fig. 1 inlet opening 20) and at least one outlet (Fig. 1 hose connection 24), the inlet of the flow tube being in fluid communication with the oxygen source (Fig. 1 respiratory gas source 14 is communication with inlet opening 20) and each outlet of the at least one outlet of the flow tube being in fluid communication with a corresponding inlet of the at least one inlet of the user interface device (Fig. 1 hose connection 24 is in fluid connection with each of the nasal prongs of nose piece 46);
an electronic shut-off valve disposed in the flow tube and movable from a first position allowing oxygen flow through the flow tube to a second position preventing oxygen flow through the flow tube (Fig. 1 valve 22; Paragraph 0017 discloses the valve may be moved from a first (open) position which allows oxygen flow to a second (closed) position which prevents oxygen flow through the tube); and
a wire conductor (Fig. 1 detector wire 34 and electrical conductor 56) configured to provide power to the electronic shut-off valve so that when power is provided to the shut-off valve, the shut-off valve is in the first position, and when no power is provided to the shut-off valve, the shut-off valve is in the second position (Paragraph 0032 discloses that when wire 34 melts, the ability to conduct electric current is taken away; Paragraph 0036 discloses in the event of the wire being destroyed, the control unit 28 controls the valve 22 to close and release the breathing gas to the environment which extinguishes the fire), wherein a first portion of the wire conductor extends across the at least one outlet of the user interface device (Examiner notes the wire conductor 34.1.1 and conductor 56 span nose piece 46).
Jorg does not disclose a power source. However, Zapol discloses systems and methods for therapeutic gas generation which has a wearable device with a battery (Fig. 22 battery 282, enclosure 284).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jorg to further include a power source, as taught by Zapol, in order to provide a device which is portable and battery powered (Paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 2, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 1, and Jorg further discloses wherein the user interface device further comprises a nasal cannula including a pair of nasal prongs, each nasal prong including a respective outlet of the user interface device (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46 has two nasal prongs).
Regarding claim 3, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 2, and Jorg further discloses wherein the flow tube includes a first portion and a second portion, the second portion of the flow tube forming a flow loop with the nasal cannula, and the first portion of the flow tube extending from the second portion of the flow tube to the electronic shut-off valve (See Jorg Annotated Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
771
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 2, and Jorg further discloses wherein the first portion of the wire conductor that extends across the outlets of the nasal prongs of the user interface device has a first gauge that is configured to burn through in the presence of fire, thereby stopping delivery of power to the electronic shut-off valve (Paragraph 0032 discloses the detector wire 34 melts/gets destroyed locally and breaks down its ability to conduct electrical current; Paragraph 0036 discloses interruption of the electric current results in closing of the valve 22; Examiner notes the wire inherently has a first gauge).
Regarding claim 8, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 2, and Jorg as modified by Zapol further discloses a housing, wherein the power source comprises a battery, wherein the electronic shut-off valve and the battery are disposed within the housing (Zapol Fig. 22 battery 282, enclosure 284; Examiner notes the battery of Zapol would be co-located with the fire protection module 18 and radio module 50; Examiner further notes the module 18 naturally has walls forming a housing which encloses valve 22).
Regarding claim 9, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 2, and Jorg further discloses wherein the wire conductor is embedded or co-extruded within a side wall of the flow tube (Paragraph 0011 discloses the breathing tube may be injection molded around the detector wire and thus in an extrusion process).
Regarding claim 10, Jorg discloses a system for delivery of a flow of oxygen to a user (Fig. 1 oxygen device), comprising:
a source of oxygen (Fig. 1 respiratory source 14);
a user interface device with a body portion including at least one inlet (Fig. 2 left and right sides of nose part 54) and at least one outlet (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46, nasal prongs as shown in Fig. 2), each outlet of the at least one outlet being configured for allowing the flow of oxygen to the user (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46 are nasal prongs; Examiner notes each nasal prong is an outlet);
a flow tube (Fig. 1 breathing air hose 26; Examiner notes the tube extends from the nasal piece 46 down into the respiratory gas source 14) having an inlet (Fig. 1 inlet opening 20) and at least one outlet (Fig. 1 hose connection 24), the inlet of the flow tube being in fluid communication with the oxygen source (Fig. 1 respiratory gas source 14 is communication with inlet opening 20) and each outlet of the at least one outlet of the flow tube being in fluid communication with a corresponding inlet of the at least on inlet of the user interface (Fig. 1 hose connection 24 is in fluid connection with each of the nasal prongs of nose piece 46);
an electronic shut-off valve disposed in the flow tube and movable from a first position that allows oxygen flow through the flow tube to a second position that prevents oxygen flow through the flow tube (Fig. 1 valve 22; Paragraph 0017 discloses the valve may be moved from a first (open) position which allows oxygen flow to a second (closed) position which prevents oxygen flow through the tube); and
a wire conductor (Figs. 1 & 2 detector wire 34 and electrical conductor 56) configured to provide power to the electronic shut-off valve so that when power is provided to the shut-off valve, the shut-off valve is in the first position, and when no power is provided to the shut-off valve, the shut-off valve is in the second position (Paragraph 0032 discloses that when wire 34 melts, the ability to conduct electric current is taken away; Paragraph 0036 discloses in the event of the wire being destroyed, the control unit 28 controls the valve 22 to close and release the breathing gas to the environment which extinguishes the fire), wherein a first portion of the wire conductor extends across the at least one outlet of the user interface device (Examiner notes the wire conductor 34.1.1 and conductor 56 span nose piece 46).
Jorg does not disclose a power source. However, Zapol discloses systems and methods for therapeutic gas generation which has a wearable device with a battery (Fig. 22 battery 282, enclosure 284).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jorg to further include a power source, as taught by Zapol, in order to provide a device which is portable and battery powered (Paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 12, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, and Jorg further discloses wherein the user interface device comprises a nasal cannula including a pair of nasal prongs, each nasal prong including a respective outlet of the at least one outlet (Figs. 1 & 2 nosepiece 46 has two nasal prongs).
Regarding claim 13, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 12, and Jorg further discloses wherein the flow tube includes a first portion and a second portion, the second portion of the flow tube forming a flow loop with the nasal cannula, and the first portion of the flow tube extending from the second portion of the flow tube to the electronic shut-off valve (See Jorg Annotated Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
771
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 12, and Jorg further discloses wherein the first portion of the wire conductor that extends across the at least one outlet of the nasal prongs of the user interface device has a first gauge that is configured to burn through in the presence of fire, thereby stopping delivery of power to the electronic shut-off valve (Paragraph 0032 discloses the detector wire 34 melts/gets destroyed locally and breaks down its ability to conduct electrical current; Paragraph 0036 discloses interruption of the electric current results in closing of the valve 22; Examiner notes the wire inherently has a first gauge).
Regarding claim 18, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, and Jorg as modified by Zapol further discloses a housing, wherein the power source comprises a battery, wherein the electronic shut-off valve and the battery are disposed within the housing (Zapol Fig. 22 battery 282, enclosure 284; Examiner notes the battery of Zapol would be co-located with the fire protection module 18 and radio module 50; Examiner further notes the module 18 naturally has walls forming a housing which encloses valve 22).
Regarding claim 19, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, but Jorg does not disclose wherein the oxygen source comprises at least one of an oxygen bottle or an oxygen concentrator. However, Zapol teaches a device for delivering therapeutic air flow where the oxygen source is an oxygen concentrator (Paragraph 0134 discloses the system can utilize an oxygen concentrator).
Regarding claim 20, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, and Jorg further discloses an oxygen regulator disposed between the oxygen source and the flow tube, wherein the electronic shut-off valve is disposed within the oxygen regulator (Fig. 1 fire detection module 18 contains valve 22).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorg in view of Zapol as applied to claims 4 and 10 above, and further in view of WO2024124290A1 to Creusot et al. (hereinafter “Creusot”).
Regarding claim 5, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the first gauge of the first portion of the wire conductor is equal to or less than 40 AWG. However, Creusot teaches a medical device which has a wire conductor equal or less than 40 AWG (Paragraph 0521 discloses electrical conductor wires which may be 30 AWG and also discloses alternative wire gauges are possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector wire of Jorg to be equal or less than 40 AWG, as taught by Creusot, in order to provide a gauge for thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0521).
Regarding claim 6, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 4, and Jorg further discloses two wire portions where the second portion has a second gauge (Fig. 2 wire portion 34.1.1 and conductor 56 are connected to wire 34.2.1; Examiner notes wire 34.2.1 naturally has a gauge). Jorg does not disclose the second gauge being greater than the first gauge. However, Creusot teaches a medical device which may have wires with different gauges (Paragraph 0521 discloses each of the electrical wires may comprise a wire of 30 AWG, but alternative gauges are possible; Examiner notes that the system is capable of having wires of different gauge sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jorg to have wires with different gauge sizes, as taught by Creusot, in order to provide different thicknesses for conducting power/heat (Paragraph 0521).
Regarding claim 15, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, and Jorg further discloses two wire portions where the second portion has a second gauge (Fig. 2 wire portion 34.1.1 and conductor 56 are connected to wire 34.2.1; Examiner notes wire 34.2.1 naturally has a gauge). Jorg does not disclose the second gauge being greater than the first gauge. However, Creusot teaches a medical device which may have wires with different gauges (Paragraph 0521 discloses each of the electrical wires may comprise a wire of 30 AWG, but alternative gauges are possible; Examiner notes that the system is capable of having wires of different gauge sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jorg to have wires with different gauge sizes, as taught by Creusot, in order to provide different thicknesses for conducting power/heat (Paragraph 0521).
Regarding claim 16, Jorg in view of Zapol and Creusot discloses the system of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the first gauge of the first portion of the wire conductor is equal to or less than 40 AWG. However, Creusot teaches a medical device which has a wire conductor equal or less than 40 AWG (Paragraph 0521 discloses electrical conductor wires which may be 30 AWG and also discloses alternative wire gauges are possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector wire of Jorg to be equal or less than 40 AWG, as taught by Creusot, in order to provide a gauge for thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0521).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorg in view Zapol as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US20240374849A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 7, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 4, and Jorg discloses the detector wire is an elongate electrical conductor which melts upon exposure to heat (Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0019 discloses the detector wire may be a copper wire). Jorg does not disclose wherein the wire conductor is configured to burn through in less than 0.25 seconds. Nonetheless, Liu teaches a fire protection device which uses a copper extension which is used to quickly melt and block passage of oxygen (Fig. 7 extension 401; Paragraph 0616). Liu discloses this quick melting results in prevention of loss due to fire (Paragraph 0616). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to optimize Jorg within Applicant’s claimed range of burn through in less than 0.25 seconds to thereby improve the reduction in harm to the user caused by fire. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorg in view of Zapol as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US20120167894A1 to O’Leary (hereinafter “Leary”).
Regarding claim 11, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the user interface device is a mask. However, Leary teaches an apparatus for a nasal cannula wherein the user interface is a mask (Fig. 1 apparatus 10; Examiner notes Merriam-webster defines “mask” as a covering for the face or part of the face; Here the apparatus covers a part of the face and is thus considered to be a mask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jorg to further include a mask, as taught by Leary, in order to provide assistance for placing the nasal device (Paragraphs 0025-0026).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorg in view Zapol and Creusot as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 17, Jorg in view of Zapol discloses the system of claim 15, and Jorg discloses the detector wire is an elongate electrical conductor which melts upon exposure to heat (Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0019 discloses the detector wire may be a copper wire). Jorg does not disclose wherein the wire conductor is configured to burn through in less than 0.25 seconds. Nonetheless, Liu teaches a fire protection device which uses a copper extension which is used to quickly melt and block passage of oxygen (Fig. 7 extension 401; Paragraph 0616). Liu discloses this quick melting results in prevention of loss due to fire (Paragraph 0616). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to optimize Jorg within Applicant’s claimed range of burn through in less than 0.25 seconds to thereby improve the reduction in harm to the user caused by fire. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-10987480-B1 to Lucio; US-12485244-B2 to Berlin; US-20060042638-A1 to Niklewski; US-20090288663-A1 to East; US-20140261425-A1 to Connor; US-20150231028-A1 to Belalcazar; US-20170319802-A1 to Holder; US-20200008709-A1 to Martin; US-20200129719-A1 to Orr; US-20200164170-A1 to Huttner; US-20210386952-A1 to Quechuleno; US-20220040444-A1 to Metelits; US-20220362495-A1 to Orr; US-3493703-A to Finan; and US-5005571-A to Dietz.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER RAUBENSTRAW whose telephone number is (571)272-0662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRANDY LEE can be reached at 571-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER A RAUBENSTRAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
