DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 Feb 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 12, 14 and 20 are currently amended with claim 24 newly added. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 28 Nov 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-11, filed 27 Feb 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) paragraph rejection of amended claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner concurs with applicant’s assertion that the embodiment of Gunaratnam et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0226566) previously applied against claim 1 can no longer apply (Pg. 6-9).
Applicant then asserts that Gunaratnam does not appear to teach the embodiment of Fig. 135 as including the required rotatable connection between the headgear connector and the frame connector (Pg. 9-11). However, it is respectfully submitted, as more fully detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of claim 1 below, that ¶0403 of Gunaratnam discusses the seal ring of Fig 135 as being the same “as described above”. The same paragraph of Gunaratnam also states “the nozzle assembly and/or its associated cushion could be replaced with a nasal mask and/or nasal cushion” which one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously consider to mean that all other features beyond the particular type of patient interface would be retained in Fig. 135 as compared to earlier embodiments of Gunaratnam which use a nasal pillows (i.e. nozzle) design.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,370,335 in view of Gunaratnam et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0226566) and further in view of Ging et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0272645). Patent claim 6 recites overlapping scope with instant claim 1 but fails to explicitly recite a pair of frame connectors removably connected to a headgear connector at a lower end of each side portion; the seal assembly removably connected to the frame; and each headgear connector is configured to be rotatable relative to a respective frame connector without disassembly of the side portion from the frame.
However, patent claim 6 does recite each side portion is connected to the frame. Recognizing how the side portions are earlier recited in patent claim 1 as extending along respective sides of the patient’s face, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected the connection of patent claim 6 to be formed by paired headgear connectors and frame connectors.
Gunaratnam teaches a patient interface (e.g. Figs. 60, 76B, 108 & 114) including a headgear connector (Fig. 114 #608 which can also be attached with #614; ¶0390) at a lower end of a headgear side portion (Fig. 60 at least partially along length of #592; ¶0120) configured to removably connect directly to a corresponding one of frame connectors (Fig. 114 end annular bushings of #604 or Fig. 110 #618; ¶0116) to connect headgear to the frame (Figs. 110 & 114). Gunaratnam also teaches each headgear connector is configured to be rotatable relative to a respective frame connector without disassembly of the side portion from the frame (e.g. ¶¶0390, 0398 – contrast with embodiment intended to prevent rotation; claim 50). Gunaratnam teaches these forms of headgear connection as providing the benefit of allowing the patient interface to be adjustable to suit different patients facial size and comfort (¶¶0390, 0398).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have specified in patent claim 6 a pair of frame connectors removably connected to a headgear connector at a lower end of each side portion; and each headgear connector is configured to be rotatable relative to a respective frame connector without disassembly of the side portion from the frame in order to provide the benefit of allowing the patient interface to be adjustable to suit different patients facial size and comfort in view of Gunaratnam.
Ging teaches a nasal mask (e.g. Figs. 1, 4 & 6b; ¶0107) including a seal assembly (Fig. 6b #40; ¶0107) removably connected to a frame (Fig. 6b #20; ¶0107 – detachably connected) and including a silicone seal (¶0206). Ging thus teaches the seal assembly being removably connected to the frame and including a silicone seal as commonly expected features of the prior art (¶¶0107, 0206).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have specified in patent claim 6 the seal assembly is removably connected to the frame and including a silicone seal based upon an obvious design choice selection in the art of commonly expected features which allows replaceability and comfort in view of Ging.
A further mapping of dependent claims is as follows:
Instant claim 2 vs. Gunaratnam (Fig. 76A over top of the head)
Instant claim 3 vs. Gunaratnam (Fig. 76A straps at top have only one free end)
Instant claim 4 vs. Gunaratnam (Figs. 59 & 76A; ¶¶0315-0316)
Instant claim 5 vs. limitations in patent claim 1 and the adjustability of Gunaratnam (Fig. 18; ¶0211)
Instant claim 6 vs. Gunaratnam (Figs. 60 & 76A)
Instant claim 7 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – tube entry port will obviously connect to a tube
Instant claim 8 vs. Gunaratnam (Fig. 110#619; ¶0381)
Instant claim 9 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – rigidizing material will obviously be rigid
Instant claim 10 vs. Gunaratnam (¶0212)
Instant claim 11 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – obvious for strap materials in the art to be formed from these types of material
Instant claim 12 vs. Gunaratnam (¶¶0209-0212 – strap material vs. buckle material)
Instant claim 13 vs. Gunaratnam (Fig. 18 #100 free ends; ¶0211)
Instant claim 14 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – tube entry port will obviously connect to a tube
Instant claim 15 vs. Gunaratnam (e.g. Figs. 76A & 108; ¶¶0390, 0398)
Instant claim 16 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – obvious for to select amongst different types of patient interface commonly used in the art to deliver to the patient’s nasal airway
Instant claim 17 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – obvious for to select amongst different types of patient interface commonly used in the art to deliver to the patient’s nasal airway
Instant claim 18 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – obvious for to select amongst different types of patient interface commonly used in the art to deliver to the patient’s nasal airway
Instant claim 19 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – obvious use of the patient interface of patent claim 6 for patient treatment; see also Gunaratnam (Fig. 76A; ¶0003)
Instant claim 20 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – tube entry port will obviously connect to a tube
Instant claim 21 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – position of the rigidizing material inside of a sleeve obviously suggests a fixed position
Instant claim 22 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – position of the rigidizing material inside of a sleeve obviously suggests a fixed position
Instant claim 23 as obvious in view of patent claim 1 – position of the rigidizing material inside of a sleeve obviously suggests a fixed position
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunaratnam et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0226566) in view of Ging et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0272645) and further in view of Ho et al. (U.S. Pub. 2007/0125385).
Regarding claim 1, Gunaratnam discloses a patient interface (Fig. 135; ¶0403) for delivering breathable gas to a patient, the patient interface comprising: a frame (Fig. 135 front connecting to the elbow; ¶0403 – mask frame like Resmed’s VISTA mask) having a single gas inlet opening (Fig. 135 central opening receiving the elbow) configured to receive a supply of gas in use, the frame including a main body (Fig. 135 main portion of the frame; ¶0403) and a pair of frame connectors (Fig. 135 discussed in ¶0403 as including the same seal rings as earlier embodiments; see Fig. 114 end annular bushings of #604 or Fig. 110 #618; ¶0116), the frame connectors being disposed on respective sides of the main body (Fig. 135 – note location of #500 with corresponding location on opposite side; ¶0403), the single gas inlet opening being disposed centrally along an anterior side of the main body (Fig. 135); a seal assembly (Fig. 135; ¶0403 – seal like Resmed’s VISTA mask) configured to direct the supply of gas at least to the patient's nasal airway in use (Fig. 135; ¶0403); headgear (Fig. 135 described in ¶0403 as corresponding that earlier embodiments; see Figs. 60, 76B, 108 & 114) to maintain the seal in a desired position on the patient's face, the headgear including: two side portions (Fig. 60 at least partially along length of #592; ¶0120) configured to extend along respective sides of the patient's face between the patient's eye and ear when the patient interface is worn (Fig. 76A); each side portion including 1) a side strap (Fig. 60 #580; ¶0315), 2) a rigidizing material (Fig. 60 #592; ¶0315) to provide rigidity to the side strap, the rigidizing material being fixed relative to the side strap (¶0315), and 3) a headgear connector (Fig. 114 #608 which can also be attached with #614; ¶0390) at a lower end of the side portion configured to removably connect directly to a corresponding one of the frame connectors to connect the headgear to the frame (Figs. 110 & 114); and a rear strap portion (Fig. 76A lower back strap, same as Fig. 108 lower back strap) configured to pass around a rear portion of the patient's head when the patient interface is worn, wherein each headgear connector is configured to be rotatable relative to a respective frame connector without disassembly of the side portion from the frame (e.g. ¶¶0390, 0398 – contrast with embodiment intended to prevent rotation; claim 50). Note is made that the embodiment of Fig. 135 of Gunaratnam is taught as including the same features as the other embodiments, other than the nozzle assembly and/or its associated cushion (¶0403).
Gunaratnam is silent as to whether the seal assembly is removably connected to the frame and including a silicone seal. Gunaratnam fails to disclose each side strap with a sleeve formed in an interior of the side strap, the sleeve having an inner portion; the rigidizing material disposed in the inner portion of the sleeve.
Ging teaches a nasal mask (e.g. Figs. 1, 4 & 6b; ¶0107) closely corresponding to the patient interface of Fig. 135 of Gunaratnam. Ging teaches the nasal mask as including a seal assembly (Fig. 6b #40; ¶0107) removably connected to a frame (Fig. 6b #20; ¶0107 – detachably connected) and including a silicone seal (¶0206). Ging thus teaches the seal assembly being removably connected to the frame and including a silicone seal as commonly expected features of the prior art (¶¶0107, 0206).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have specified in Gunaratnam the seal assembly is removably connected to the frame and including a silicone seal based upon an obvious design choice selection in the art of commonly expected features which allows replaceability and comfort in view of Ging.
Ho teaches a patient interface (Figs. 44-45; ¶¶0108-0111) including a pair of side straps (#1322, 1324; ¶0111), each side strap including a rigidizing material (#1330, 1332; ¶0110) which may be disposed either over or within the material forming the straps (¶0110). Ho thus teaches a sleeve formed in an interior of the side strap as an obvious design choice alternative to securing the rigidizing material to an exterior of the side strap (¶0110).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted in Gunaratnam each side strap with a sleeve formed in an interior of the side strap, the sleeve having an inner portion; the rigidizing material disposed in the inner portion of the sleeve based upon an obvious design choice alternative to select locating the rigidizing material within the strap material instead of securing the rigidizing material to an exterior of the side strap in view of Ho.
Regarding claim 2, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the headgear further comprises a pair of upper strap portions (Fig. 76A over top of the head) configured to extend over a top of the patient's head when the patient interface is worn.
Regarding claim 3, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches each upper strap portion has only one free end (Fig. 76A straps at top have only one free end).
Regarding claim 4, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the upper strap portions are arranged to be coupled to one another such that a total length of the upper strap portions is adjustable (Figs. 59 & 76A; ¶¶0315-0316).
Regarding claim 5, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above but fails to teach, in the above cited embodiment, the rear strap portion has opposing end portions configured to be adjustably coupled to a respective slot of each side portion.
However, in an alternate embodiment (Fig. 18; ¶¶0209-0212) Gunaratnam teaches side straps (Fig. 18 #96; ¶0211) including a respective slot (Fig. 18 #102; ¶0211) configured to be adjustably coupled to opposing end portions of a rear strap portion (Fig. 18 #100; ¶0211). Gunaratnam teaches this alternate headgear arrangement as providing adjustability of strap fit (Fig. 18; ¶0211).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Gunaratnam the rear strap portion has opposing end portions configured to be adjustably coupled to a respective slot of each side portion based on a further headgear embodiment of Gunaratnam which uses this claimed structure in order to provide adjustability of strap fit.
Regarding claim 6, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches each rigidizing material includes a bend along its length (Figs. 60 & 76A).
Regarding claim 7, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches in use, the frame is connected to an air delivery conduit to fluidly connect the air delivery conduit to the seal assembly (Fig. 135).
Regarding claim 8, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches said patient interface further comprising a plurality of vent holes (Fig. 110 #619; ¶0381) to, in use, discharge exhaust gases to atmosphere. See also vent openings 61 in Fig. 6b of Ging (¶0112).
Regarding claim 9, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches each rigidizing material comprises a rigid or semi-rigid material (¶0315).
Regarding claim 10, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and together with Ho further suggests as obvious each side strap comprises an outer textile layer (Gunaratnam – ¶0212) having an outer surface positioned away from the patient's face in use and an inner textile layer (Gunaratnam – ¶0212) having an outer surface arranged to contact the patient's face in use, wherein the rigidizing material is an inner layer of the side strap (Ho – ¶0110 – stiffening member “within the material forming the straps”), and wherein, as compared to the outer textile layer, the rigidizing material is positioned closer to the inner textile layer in use (Ho – ¶0110 – stiffening member “within the material forming the straps” obviously locates the stiffening member closer to the patient’s face in use than an outer strap layer).
Regarding claim 12, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above but fails to teach, in the above cited embodiment, each side portion further includes a slotted connector portion including a slot.
However, in an alternate embodiment (Fig. 18; ¶¶0209-0212) Gunaratnam teaches side straps (Fig. 18 #96; ¶0211) including a respective slot (Fig. 18 #102; ¶0211). Gunaratnam teaches buckles 102 as attached to the side straps 96 (¶0211) which obviously would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the buckles 102 as being formed of a different material from the side straps 96. One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously have expected a “buckle” to have sufficiently rigidity based both upon a common expectation of the term buckle and the functional operation of the buckle in Gunaratnam as providing a securing function. Since straps 96 are taught as being a soft, flexible composite material (¶0212) one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously have expected the buckles 102 to be more rigid than the side straps 96. Gunaratnam teaches this alternate headgear arrangement as providing adjustability of strap fit (Fig. 18; ¶0211).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Gunaratnam each side portion further includes a slotted connector portion including a slot , the slotted connector portion being formed of a semi-rigid or rigid material having increased rigidity as compared to the side strap based on a further headgear embodiment of Gunaratnam which uses this claimed structure of slots in order to provide adjustability of strap fit and in view of how the buckles 102 of Gunaratnam would be expected to be of a different material than the side straps 96, with the buckle material expected for various reasons to be more rigid than the “soft, flexible” material of the side straps 96.
Regarding claim 13, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and following after claim 12 above further teaches the rear strap portion has opposing end portions (Fig. 18 #100 free ends; ¶0211) configured to be received in respective slots of the side portions (Fig. 18; ¶0211).
Regarding claim 14, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the single gas inlet opening in the frame forms a tube entry port configured to receive an air delivery conduit for delivering the supply of (Fig. 135; ¶0403).
Regarding claim 15, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious, in use, rotation of the headgear connectors relative to the frame connectors allow the headgear to adapt to movement of the patient during sleep (e.g. Figs. 76A & 108; ¶¶0390, 0398). Rotation of the headgear connectors of Gunaratnam may occur under various circumstances, to include in response to patient movement during sleep.
Regarding claim 16, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and Ging as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious the patient interface is a full-face patient interface (¶0220).
Regarding claim 17, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the patient interface is a nasal patient interface (Fig. 135; ¶0403).
Regarding claim 18, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the seal assembly comprises a nasal cradle (e.g. Figs. 1, 76A & 98-101).
Regarding claim 19, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches a system (patient interface together with structures discussed in ¶0003) for treating a respiratory disorder in a patient, comprising: a flow generator (¶0003 – blower) to provide a supply of breathable gas; the patient interface of claim 1 (see above); and an air delivery conduit (Fig. 135) configured to connect to the patient interface to deliver the supply of breathable gas to the patient.
Regarding claim 20, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the air delivery conduit is configured to be in fluid communication with the single gas inlet opening in the frame (Fig. 135).
Regarding claim 21, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and together with Ho as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious each rigidizing material is fixed relative to a respective one of the headgear connectors (Ho – ¶0110). A locating of a stiffening member “within the material forming the straps” will obviously be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the stiffening member in place. Note additionally the intent of Gunaratnam to secure its yoke in place (e.g. ¶0315 – sewn onto).
Regarding claim 22, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and together with Ho as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious an orientation of each rigidizing material relative to a respective one of the headgear connectors is fixed (Ho – ¶0110). A locating of a stiffening member “within the material forming the straps” will obviously be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the stiffening member in place relative to other parts of the side portion. Note additionally the intent of Gunaratnam to secure its yoke in place (e.g. ¶0315 – sewn onto). Note also the fixed location of yoke 608 and seal ring 614 in Fig. 114 of Gunaratnam relative to the side portion (¶0398).
Regarding claim 23, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above and together with Ho as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious a rotational position of each rigidizing material relative to a respective one of the headgear connectors is fixed (Ho – ¶0110). A locating of a stiffening member “within the material forming the straps” will obviously be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the stiffening member in place relative to other parts of the side portion. Note additionally the intent of Gunaratnam to secure its yoke in place (e.g. ¶0315 – sewn onto). Note also the fixed location of yoke 608 and seal ring 614 in Fig. 114 of Gunaratnam relative to the side portion (¶0398).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunaratnam et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0226566) in view of Ging et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0272645) and further in view of Ho et al. (U.S. Pub. 2007/0125385) and further in view of Ging et al. (U.S. Pub. 2003/0196655).
Regarding claim 11, Gunaratnam teaches the invention as modified above but fails to explicitly teach the inner textile layer and/or the outer textile layer comprises polyester and/or elastic material.
Ging teaches a headgear (Figs. 1 & 3) including a strap having a textile layer of an elastic material (¶0120 – strap of Breath-O-Prene™). Ging teaches Breath-O-Prene™ as a commercially available elastic material suitable for headgear straps which will provide a comfortable fit for a patient (¶0120).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Gunaratnam the inner textile layer and/or the outer textile layer comprises elastic material based upon an obvious material selection of Breath-O-Prene™ as a particular material for the straps which is commercially available, suitable for headgear straps and which will provide a comfortable fit for a patient in view of Ging.
Ging teaches a nasal interface (e.g. Fig. 1) but teaches nasal masks in the art can be obviously adapted into the form of a full-face mask (¶0231).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted in the modified Gunaratnam the patient interface is a full-face patient interface based upon an obvious design choice commonly recognized in the art to adapt from a nasal mask into a full-face mask in view of Ging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24, neither Gunaratnam nor any of the other above cited prior art teach or suggest the rigidizing material and the slotted connector are connected to form a continuous rigidizing structure. The citation from Gunaratnam against claim 12 (see above) is drawn from Fig. 18 and its inclusion of buckles 102. However, buckles 102 in Fig. 18 are an extension of side straps 96. Side straps 96 are not the rigidizing material cited from Gunaratnam in the above rejection of claim 1. There is not found to be an expectation in Gunaratnam, or the other prior art, that buckles 102 would specifically be formed continuously with the yoke 608 as opposed to the illustrated location of buckles 102 as an extension of side straps 96. This is particularly true in light of how claim 1 has recited the rigidizing material as “disposed in the inner portion of the sleeve” and in view of how the teachings of the above cited Ho only suggest the rigidizing material as fully “within” the strap material.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785