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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed 9/11/25. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 2, 4-5, 12-13, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27 and 29-70 have been cancelled and claim 73 has been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6-11, 14-16, 18, 20, 22-23, 25-26, 28 and 71-73 are presently pending in this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference number 100 on page 18, line 36 is suggested to be changed to 200 for consistency.
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 11 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 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 11 recites “about 0.5 mm wide or less” language however it is unclear what the scope of this range is due to the “about” language.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
The limitation of “an engagement mechanism” having the generic placeholder of “mechanism” and functional language of “to couple”, as recited in line 2 of claim 1.
The limitation of "a flow directing element" having the generic placeholder of "element" and functional language of "directs gas flow", as recited in line 2 of claim 20.
The limitation of "a sealing element" having the generic placeholder of "element" and functional language of "adapted to seal", as recited in lines 3-4 of claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 14-16, 18, 20, 22-23, 25 and 71-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (WO 2018/033863) in view of Teibel (2007/0163587) and Boger (5,988,586).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 20 Barnes discloses a pressure relief valve 400 (Page 76, ll. 14-15) comprising: an inlet 151 to couple the pressure relief valve to a gas flow source (12, fig. 1, at least indirectly); an outlet 153 connectable to a humidifier (109, at least indirectly) to provide fluid communication between the pressure relief valve and the humidifier (Fig. 1); wherein the pressure relief valve comprises a flow compensated pressure relief valve (Page 76, ll. 14-15), but is silent regarding that the inlet comprising an engagement mechanism to couple the pressure relief valve to the gas flow source. However, Teibel teaches that a valve 750 (see fig. 9) is connected to a gas flow source (defined by male 702 portion and female 704 portion, see fig. 9; filtered air enters the male portion 702 to flow to the valve 750, see para. [0116]) via an engagement mechanism (defined by threads, of the valve 750, for engaging threaded hole 716 of the female portion 704, see fig. 9 and para. [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the Barnes’ pressure relief valve with an engagement mechanism for being connected to the gas flow source, as taught by Teibel, for the purpose of providing an alternate connection between the inlet with the gas flow source. The modified Barnes is silent regarding a respiratory system muffler located along a gas flow path of the pressure relief valves, the gas flow path extending between the inlet and the outlet. However, Boger teaches that a muffler (defined by insert 30, see fig. 1A) is connected to an outlet (defined by outlet section 16, see fig. 1A) of a valve (defined by ball valve 10, see fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a respiratory system muffler on the modified Barnes outlet, as taught by Boger, for the purpose of suppressing noise. The modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler comprises a tortuous gas flow path to attenuate sound (the respiratory system muffler 30 comprises passages 32a, 34a and 36a, fig. 1 of Boger, for forming a tortuous path, see line 58 of col. 3 to line 3 of col. 4 of Boger).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler is located at the outlet (fig. 1A of Boger).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Barnes discloses that the tortuous gas flow path comprises different cross-sectional gas flow areas (the respiratory system muffler 30 comprises passages 32a, 34a, 36a and 38A, fig. 1A of Boger, for forming a tortuous path of various cross-sectional areas, see line 58 of col. 3 to line 3 of col. 4 of Boger).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Barnes discloses that the tortuous gas flow path comprises at least one contraction portion (within the small passages of 32a, 36a and 34a, Boger) where a gas flow is caused to contract and at least one expansion portion (larger cavities 38a and 38b, Boger) where the gas flow is caused to expand.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler comprises two or more sound attenuating structures (wall forming passages 32a, 34a, 36a, fig. 1A of Boger).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Barnes discloses an expansion chamber (38a Boger) is defined between two adjacent sound attenuating structures (walls forming 32a and 34a Boger) of the two or more sound attenuating structures.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Barnes discloses a constant distance or a variable distance is provided between the two or more sound attenuating structures (the distance between each of the walls of 32a, 34a and 36a is either constant or variable, Boger).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Barnes discloses that each sound attenuating structure of the two or more sound attenuating structures has a same thickness or at least one sound attenuating structure of the two or more sound attenuating structures has a different thickness to one or more other sound attenuating structures of the two or more sound attenuating structures (the thickness of each of the walls of 32a, 34a and 36a is either the same or different, Boger).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Barnes discloses that a muffler inlet (at 32 Boger) comprises a flow directing element (peripheral wall of 32, Boger) that directs gas flow to the sound attenuating structures or the expansion chamber (the flow directing element direct gas to flow toward the sound attenuating structures or the expansion chamber of Boger).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler comprises a muffler inlet (defined by a left-hand side of the muffler 30 in fig. 1A of Boger), wherein the muffler inlet comprises inlet apertures (32A Boger).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Barnes discloses that the muffler comprises a terminal end plate (34 Boger, fig. 2) on which a muffler outlet is located (distal end of 34, Boger) and wherein the muffler outlet comprises one or more outlet apertures (34a Boger).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Barnes discloses that a distance from a muffler inlet (defined by a left-hand side of the muffler 30, Fig. 1A Boger) to a muffler outlet (defined by a right-hand side of the muffler 30 , Fig. 1A Boger) corresponds to a sound frequency to be dampened by the respiratory system muffler (the muffler is shown to have the distance for the tortuous path as claimed, see fig. 1A of Boger, such that the distance of the muffler corresponds to a sound frequency of the noise to be damped via the muffler).
Regarding claim 71, the modified Barnes discloses that the pressure relief valve further comprising a vent outlet (103, fig. 20 Barnes) for pressure relief.
Regarding claim 72, the modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler is inserted within the outlet (the respiratory system muffler 30 is inserted within the outlet 16 of Boger in fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 73, the modified Barnes discloses that a majority of a length of the respiratory system muffler is positioned between the inlet and the outlet (see fig. 1A Boger in which muffler 30 is positioned between the inlet 14 and the outlet 16).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, Teibel, Boger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sterling (6,668,971) and Murphy (4,049,075).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Barnes is silent with regard to the respiratory system muffler comprises a housing, a muffler inlet, a muffler outlet, and a sound attenuating structure that defines a gap between a peripheral surface of the sound attenuating structure and an internal wall of the housing, wherein the gap forms a portion of the gas flow path. However, Sterling teaches that an outlet (defined by air exhaust passage 16 and exhaust passage main section 26, see fig. 2) that includes a muffler (defined by inner tube 30 and outer tube 32, see figs. 2-3 and lines 41-44 of col. 3) comprising a tortuous gas flow path (the muffler 30/32 includes a torturous path for damping exhaust noise from exhaust gas air, see the abstract); the respiratory system muffler comprises a housing (defined by outer tube 32, see fig. 4), a muffler inlet (defined by central channel 52, see fig. 4), a muffler outlet (see annotated fig. 5 of Sterling below), and a sound attenuating structure (defined by dividers 56, see figs. 1 and 5; the dividers 56 force gas to flow laterally away from the external wall of the inner tube 30, see lines 20-33 of col. 4, the dividers 56 forming the tortuous gas flow path which attenuates sound along the muffler 30/32, see the abstract, and the dividers 56 are considered to form a sound attenuating structure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the modified Barnes’ muffler with Sterling’s muffler, as taught by Sterling, since it is merely a substitution of one known type of muffler with another known type of muffler, and it appears that the modified Barnes system would perform equally well when attenuating sound exiting the pressure relief valve, see lines 13-14 of the abstract of Sterling. The modified Barnes system discloses the peripheral surface of the sound attenuating structure (see annotated fig. 5 of Sterling) and an internal wall of the housing (the housing 32 is shown to include an internal wall and each peripheral surface of each divider 56 of the sound attenuating structure appears to contact the internal wall, see fig. 3 of Sterling), but is silent with regard to a gap between the peripheral surface of the sound attenuating structure and the internal wall of the housing. However, Murphy teaches that a muffler (defined by sound damper, see fig. 12 and lines 52-63 of col. 7) includes sound attenuating structure (defined by a structure formed by conical rigid members 212/213, see fig. 12) having peripheral surfaces (defined by rounded edges 217, see fig. 12), and a gap (defined by an air flow path moving around each peripheral surface 217 of each conical rigid member 212/213 of the sound attenuating structure, see fig. 12 and lines 7-11 of col. 8) is formed between each peripheral surface 217 and an internal wall of a housing (defined by resilient sheath 208, see fig. 12; air enters the muffler at the ring 211 and flows around the gap between the peripheral surface 217 of each conical rigid member 212/213 of the sound attenuating structure toward an intake 206, see lines 7-11 of col. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each peripheral ridge of the modified Barnes sound attenuating structure to include a gap between each peripheral ridge and the internal wall, as taught by Murphy, for the purpose of reducing impedance of gas flowing along the tortuous gas flow path, see lines 15-22 of col. 8 of Murphy. The modified Barnes system discloses that the gap forms a portion of the gas flow path (the muffler 30/32 includes the tortuous gas flow path, see the abstract of Sterling, where the gap, see fig. 12 of Murphy, forms a portion of the tortuous gas flow path between the inner tube 30 and the outer tube 32, see figs. 3 and 5 of Sterling).
Annotated fig. 5 of Sterling
PNG
media_image1.png
271
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the modified Barnes system discloses that the sound attenuating structure comprises laterally extending projections (defined by dividers 56, see figs. 3 and 5 of Sterling) that extends towards the internal wall of the housing (the sound attenuating structure includes laterally extending projections 56 which are shown to laterally extend away from the inner tube 30 toward the internal wall of the housing 32, see lines 20-23 of col. 4 of Sterling).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Barnes system discloses that the laterally extending projection terminates proximate to the internal wall of the housing and at least a portion of the gas flow path is defined by the gap formed between the peripheral surface of the laterally extending projection and the internal wall of the housing (the laterally extending projections 56 which are shown to laterally extend away from the inner tube 30 and terminate proximal to the internal wall of the housing 32, due to the gap as shown in fig. 12 of Murphy, see lines 20-23 of col. 4 of Sterling; the gap, see fig. 12 of Murphy, forms a portion of the tortuous gas flow path, see the abstract of Sterling, between the inner tube 30 and the outer tube 32, see figs. 3 and 5 of Sterling).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, Teibel, Boger, Sterling and Murphy as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dorne et al. (2018/0058789).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Barnes is silent with regard to the gap being about 0.5 mm wide or less. However, in fig. 2B Dorne teaches that a similar muffler 100 that includes a gap (defined by gap distance “G”, see fig. 2C), between laterally extending projections 3 and an internal wall of a housing 11, where the gap is about 0.5 mm wide or less (the gap is approximately 0.001 inches = 0.0254 mm [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gap of the modified Barnes system to be less than 0.1 mm wide, as taught by Dorne, for the purpose of providing gas equalization and noise suppression ([0065] Dorne).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, Teibel and Boger, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of DeVries (7,527,053).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Barnes is silent with regard to the distance being at least 20mm. However, DeVries teaches that a similar muffler (defined by perforated tube 300, see fig. 6; the muffler 300 includes dimensions for attenuating noise at one or more frequencies, see line 66 of col. 11 to line 2 of col. 12) includes a length of 2.7 inches (the muffler 300 includes a length of 2.7 inches, or 68.58 mm, which extends from a muffler inlet, defined by port 304 shown in fig. 6, to a muffler outlet, defined by second end 312 shown in fig. 7 as having exterior tubes 306 as outlets, of the muffler 300, see fig. 6 and line 35 of col. 12 on “Table 1”).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between the modified Barnes muffler inlet and muffler outlet to be 68.58 mm, as taught by DeVries, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component, since the modified Parmigiani muffler would perform equally well when attenuating noise at different frequencies, see line 66 of col. 11 to line 2 of col. 12 of DeVries, and since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, Teibel and Boger, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (2017/0306904).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Barnes discloses that the respiratory system muffler comprises an outlet end portion (near 34 Boger) on which a muffler outlet is located (outlet of 34 of Boger), but is silent with regard to a sealing element adapted to seal against the surface of the pressure relief valve. However, fig. 3 of Inoue teaches a sealing element 110 adapted to seal against pipe 200. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Barnes’ muffler outlet end portion with a sealing element, as taught by Inoue, for the purpose of preventing gas leakage along the gas flow path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed 9/11/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Andrieux, Teibel, Phillips and Fagerland as well as Andrieux, Teibel, Phillips and Boger have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Barnes, Teibel and Boger.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 9/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Boger’s muffler 30 is not along a flow path of the pressure relief valve, but rather downstream of a valve.
Examiner disagrees since Boger’s valve includes all of the structure in figure 1A (except the muffler 30). Even though Boger calls 10 a “ball valve,” it is clear from the structure that the valve requires 14 and 16 to function. Therefore, Boger’s muffler 30 is positioned between the inlet and the outlet of the valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785