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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the non-horizontal pathways in claim 1 and downward sloping pathways in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “150” has been used to designate both internal cavity of the body and internal cavity of the wedge pad. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term/pronouns “it” in lines 14 and 16 should be replaced with the specific structure to which Applicant is seeking patent protection. 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.
Claims 9, 17-20 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.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as there is nothing in the specification, to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about."
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the non-horizontal pathways" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as there is nothing in the specification, to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about."
The term “about” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as there is nothing in the specification, to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about."
Claim 20 is 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 since claim 20 depends on claim 19 and therefore, contain the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are allowed.
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art drawn to Mobley et al. U.S. Publication No. (2015/0223622 A1) fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements particularly the limitations as set forth in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 and dependent claims 2-8, 11-16 and 20 which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art drawn to Mobley et al. It is respectfully submitted that the cited references, i.e., Mobley et al. considered either alone or in combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed combinations of features presently set forth in independent claims 1, 10 and 19. More particularly, it is respectfully submitted that the cited reference fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed combination of features presently set forth in independent claim 1, including the combination of features of: ”a right- side intubation tube channel comprising a non-horizontal pathway from the right-side surface to the internal cavity; a left-side intubation tube channel comprising a non-horizontal pathway from the left-side surface to the internal cavity; the top surface comprising a left-side slot configured to allow insertion of an intubation tube into the left-side channel; the right-side channel comprising a right-side perforation pattern, wherein the right-side perforation pattern is configured to be broken prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the right-side channel from the top surface; and the left-side channel comprising a left-side perforation pattern, wherein the left-side perforation pattern is configured to be broken prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the left-side channel from the top surface”; as to independent claim 10, the prior art drawn to Mobley et al. does not disclose/teach individually nor fairly suggest in combination, “a right-side intubation tube channel comprising a downward sloping pathway from the right-side surface to the internal cavity; a left-side intubation tube channel comprising a downward sloping pathway from the left-side surface to the internal cavity; the right-side intubation tube channel comprising a sealed right-side slot configured to allow insertion of an intubation tube into the right-side channel; the left-side intubation tube channel comprising a sealed left-side slot configured to allow insertion of an intubation tube into the left- side channel; wherein the sealed right-side slot is configured such that it must be opened by a user prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the right-side channel; and wherein the sealed left-side slot is configured such that it must be opened by a user prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the left-side channel” and as to independent claim 19, the prior art drawn to Mobley et al. does not disclose/teach individually nor fairly suggest in combination, “the first section comprising an overhang that extends into the internal cavity further than the second section; a right-side intubation tube channel comprising an angled pathway having a diameter of about 0.5 inches or less from the right-side surface to the internal cavity; a left-side intubation tube channel comprising an angled pathway having a diameter of about 0.5 inches or less from the left-side surface to the internal cavity; the top surface comprising a left-side slot configured to allow insertion of an intubation tube into the left-side channel; the right-side channel comprising a right-side perforation pattern, wherein the right- side perforation pattern is configured to be broken prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the right-side channel from the top surface; and the left-side channel comprising a left-side perforation pattern, wherein the left-side perforation pattern is configured to be broken prior to insertion of the intubation tube in the left-side channel from the top of the surface”, in combination with the other elements (or steps) of the apparatus and method recited in the claims.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness or an anticipation rejection cannot be established with respect to the claimed subject matter as set forth in claims 1, 10 and 19.
Claims 2-8, 11-16 and 20 are allowed insofar as they depend from the allowed base claims 1, 10 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, EST.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786