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 for priority to Application No. (68/890,846) filed on the August 23, 2019.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 28, 2024. As directed by the amendment: claim 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 has been amended, claims no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are presently pending in the application, claims 4, 11, and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that the objection made on drawings should be withdrawn. Applicant response is persuasive and replacement drawings have been filed, the previous drawing objections has been hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the objection made on claims should be withdrawn. Applicant response is persuasive and the previous claim objections has been hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 8-9 of the remarks that none of the cited references disclose or suggest that "wherein a ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance is between about 0.25 and about 0.7" in new amended claim 1. However, the examiner has amended the rejections and the new 103 rejection stated below addresses the new limitation of the claim. Applicant also argues that there is critically in the specific range of “about 0.2 to about 0.7” and Kramer in view of Miller does not teach anything that talk about sealing depth to port separation distance. As stated in the previous OA, due to an absence of the limitation of the ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance being between about 0.2 and about 0.7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the ratio to be between about 0.2 and about 0.7, so the corresponding parts could fit into each other and create a seal; 300 in Fig. 3 should be between about 0.2 and about 0.7 to fit into 10.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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, 8-10, 20-24, 33-34, 36-39, and 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 20070230927 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 20180177967 A1), hereafter as Miller.
Regarding Claim 1, Kramer discloses a humidifier liquid comprising:
a first base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3; para. 0023) and a second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 4; para. 0023) for connecting to a breathing assistance apparatus base unit (examiner notes: this limitation is functional, para. 0022), the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port defining respective axes (Figs. 1-3);
wherein the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port are substantially parallel to each other and are separated by a port separation distance between the respective axes (para. 0023);
Kramer does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port has a sealing depth defined by a portion of at least one of the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port
that is configured to overlap with a complementary chamber connection port of the breathing assistance apparatus base unit, wherein a ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance between about 0.25 and about 0.7.
However, Miller teaches at least one of the base unit connection ports (306, 308) has a sealing depth (where the tubes 322, 340 seal into 306 and 308; Fig. 3) defined by a portion of the port that is configured to overlap with a complementary chamber connection port (Fig. 3; 322, 340) of the base unit (Fig. 3; 10);
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 ports of Kramer to include the base unit connection ports has a sealing depth defined by a portion of the port that is configured to overlap with a complementary chamber connection port of the base unit as taught by Miller for the purpose of allowing easy insertion and removal of the liquid chamber to and from the liquid chamber bay because a user's fingers can easily fit between housing walls and the liquid chamber (para. 0304).
Modified Kramer does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance is between about 0.25 and about 0.7.
However, Modified Kramer teaches wherein a ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance (See Annotated Figure A Below; Examiner notes: The ratio of the PSD and SD is more than “about” 0.25; MPEP 2125, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Due to a specific absence of the limitations of ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance being between about 0.25 and about 0.7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the ratio to be between about 0.25 and about 0.7 so the corresponding parts could fit into each other and create a seal; 300 in Fig. 3 should be about 0.25 to fit into 10. 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 ratio to be between about 0.25 and about 0.7. Applicant has not disclosed that the ratio provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that a ratio of the sealing depth SD to port separation distance PSD is between about 0.25 and about 0.7 (para. 00467). Applicant has not disclosed that ratio of the sealing depth SD to port separation distance PSD provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that the distance A ratio of the sealing depth SD to port separation distance PSD “may” be within more than about 0.25, more than about 0.25 and up to about 0.7, between about 0.3 and about 0.7… about 0.675, about 0.7, or any value or range between those values. (00467).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Kramer to incorporate the ratio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance for the two corresponding pieces to fit into each other and provide a seal and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Kramer.
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1,
Modified Kramer does not specifically teach wherein the ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance is between about 0.3 and about 0.7.
However, Modified Kramer teaches wherein a ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance (See Annotated Figure A above; Examiner notes: The ratio of the PSD and SD is between “about” 0.3 and “about” 0.7; MPEP 2125, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972))
Due to an absence of the limitation of the ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance being between about 0.3 and about 0.7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the ratio to be between about 0.3 and about 0.7, so the corresponding parts could fit into each other and create a seal; 300 in Fig. 3 should be between about 0.3 and about 0.7 to fit into 10. 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 ratio to be between about 0.3 and about 0.7. Applicant has not disclosed that the ratio provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that A ratio of the sealing depth SD to port separation distance PSD is between about 0.3 and about 0.7, more than about 0.25 and up to about 0.7 (para. 00467).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Kramer to incorporate the ratio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance for the two corresponding pieces to fit into each other and provide a seal and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Kramer.
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1,
Modified Kramer does not specifically teach wherein the sealing depth is more than about 12 mm and up to about 16 mm.
However, Modified Kramer teaches a sealing depth (See Annotated Figure A above; MPEP 2125, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)).
Due to an absence of the limitation of the sealing depth is more than about 12 mm and up to about 16 mm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the sealing depth is more than about 12 mm and up to about 16 mm, so the corresponding parts could fit into each other and create a seal; 300 in Fig. 3. 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 sealing depth to be more than about 12 mm and up to about 16 mm. Applicant has not disclosed that the length provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating The sealing depth SD is more than about 10 mm, more than about 10 mm and up to about 16mm, more than about 12 mm, or more than about 12 mm (para. 00352).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Kramer to incorporate the sealing depth is more than about 12 mm and up to about 16 mm as specified in claim 8, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired the sealing depth so the ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance for the two corresponding pieces to fit into each other and provide a seal and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Kramer.
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the first base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3 or 4; para. 0023; Kramer) and the second base unit connection port is configured (Examiner notes: this limitation is functional) to seal with at least two seals on the complementary chamber connection port (Fig. 3; 340; para. 0194 Miller; Examiner notes: T ring has two seals).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, wherein the first base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3 or 4; para. 0023; Kramer) and the second base unit connection port each have an exterior face (Fig. 1; end of 3 and 4; 14) of each of the first base unit connection port and the exterior face of the second base unit connection port and are substantially planar and are substantially perpendicular to the respective axes (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1,
Modified Kramer does not specifically disclose wherein the port separation distance is about 40 mm +/- 0.6 mm.
However, Modified Kramer teaches wherein the port separation distance is a length (See Annotated Figure A above; MPEP 2125, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)).
Due to an absence of the limitations of the port separation distance is about 40 mm +/- 0.6 mm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the port separation distance is about 40 mm +/- 0.6 mm, so the corresponding parts could fit into each other and create a seal; 300 in Fig. 3. 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 port separation distance is about 40 mm +/- 0.6 mm. Applicant has not disclosed that the length provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating the port separation distance PSD is between about 35 mm and about 45 mm, between about 38 mm and about 42 mm, or is about 40 mm +/- 0.6mm. The port separation distance PSD may be about 35 mm, about 36 mm, about 37 mm, about 38 mm, about 39 mm, about 40 mm, about 41 mm, about 42 mm, or any value or range between those values. (para. 00354).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Kramer to incorporate the port separation distance is about 40 mm +/- 0.6 mm as specified in claim 20, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the port separation distance so the ratio of the sealing depth to port separation distance for the two corresponding pieces to fit into each other and provide a seal and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Kramer.
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, comprising flow tubes (Fig. 3; 5, 6; para. 0023, 0025,0027, 0030) extending into the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 3) from the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3, 4; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 22, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 21, wherein each of the flow tube (Fig. 3; 5, 6; para. 0023, 0025,0027, 0030) comprises an opening at or adjacent to an end of each of the flow tube (Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027) that is distal from a respective first base unit connection port and second base unit connection port (Fig. 3), wherein the opening is configured to direct flow and is spaced from a wall of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 2-4; Examiner notes: the openings are spaced from the walls).
Regarding Claim 23, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 22, wherein the opening (Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027) in each flow tube (Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027) faces a roof of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 2; the opening are facing upwards).
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 22, comprising a baffle (Reference A in Annotated Figure B below; Fig. 3; Kramer) in an interior of the humidifier liquid chamber and between the opening (Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027) of each of the flow tubes(Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027).
PNG
media_image2.png
344
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 33, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, comprising a step (Reference A in Annotated Figure C below) in the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1; 1; para. 0023).
PNG
media_image3.png
378
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C: Adapted Figure 4 from Kramer
Regarding Claim 34, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 33, wherein a base of the step (Reference A in Figure C above) is located at least partly below the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3, 4; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 36, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 33, comprising a baffle (Reference A in Figure B above) in an interior of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1; 1; 0023), wherein the baffle extends from a rear of the humidifier liquid chamber towards a substantially vertical face of the step (Figure A in Figure C above), and terminates proximal to a central axis of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 3; Examiner notes: The baffle proximally ends in the central axis of the humidifier liquid chamber).
Regarding Claim 37, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, wherein the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1; 1; 0023) has a substantially cylindrical shape (Figs. 1-2, 4).
Regarding Claim 38, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 37, wherein the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1-3; 1; 0023) tapers towards a centre of the humidifier liquid chamber from a base of the humidifier liquid chamber to a top of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 39, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, comprising a heat conductive base (Fig. 1-2; 2; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 44, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, comprising a shoulder (Fig. 1; ledge in between 3 and 4) between the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3, 4; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 45, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 44, wherein the shoulder (Fig. 1; ledge in between 3 and 4) extends beyond exterior faces of the the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3, 4; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 46, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 1, wherein one of the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port (Fig. 1; 3, 4; para. 0023) is an inlet port (3) and another of the first base unit connection port and the second base unit connection port is an outlet port (4) (para. 0023).
Claim(s) 25-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer and Miller, as applied to Claim 24, in further view of Smith et al. (US 20100154796 A1), hereafter as Smith
Regarding Claim 25, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 24, wherein the baffle (Reference A in Annotated Figure B above; Fig. 3; Kramer) extends downward from a roof of the humidifier liquid chamber(Fig. 3; The baffle is extending downward from the roof).
Modified Kramer does not disclose that the baffle terminates above a maximum liquid fill level of the humidifier liquid chamber.
However, Smith teaches that the baffle (Fig. 3, 4; 74; para. 0055, 0059-0060) terminates above a maximum liquid fill level of the humidifier liquid chamber (Examiner notes: Smith teaches that the baffle can be any suitable height).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include that that the baffle terminates above a maximum liquid fill level of the humidifier liquid chamber as taught by Smith for the purpose of allowing increased moisturization of the flow of gas, and the use of a curved baffle having a concave surface smoothly changes the direction of the air flow by gently guiding the air flow around the tub (para. 0056). Also, benefits of providing better mixing of air and moisture pickup include a reduced water temperature for a given delivered air moisture content, which results in less electrical energy usage by the heater element and lower casing temperature. The reduced Pressure loss means that the motor power of the flow generator does not need to increase to compensate for this pressure loss. This saves motor power by lowering motor speed, which also results in reduced noise levels (para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 26, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 25, wherein a distance between a bottom edge of the baffle (Fig. 3, 4; 74; para. 0055, 0059-0060; Smith) and the maximum liquid fill level is between about a certain height (para. 0055; Smith; Examiner it can be any suitable height).
Modified Kramer does not specifically teach that the length/height is between about 5 mm and about 15 mm.
However, Smith teaches wherein the height can be any suitable height (para. 0055; Smith; Examiner it can be any suitable height; MPEP 2125, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)).
Due to an absence of the limitations of the maximum liquid fill level is between about 5mm to about 15mm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, assuming the broadest interpretation of both the prior art and the instant claim, that you would want the maximum liquid fill level is between about 5mm to about 15mm, so providing better mixing of air and moisture pickup include a reduced water temperature for a given delivered air moisture content, which results in less electrical energy usage by the heater element and lower casing temperature. 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 maximum liquid fill level is between about 5mm to about 15mm. Applicant has not disclosed that the length provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating the maximum liquid fill level may be between about 5 mm and about 15mm. The distance may be between about 6 mm and about 14 mm, between about 7 mm and about 13 mm, between about 8 mm and about 12 mm, between about 9 mm and about 11 mm, about 5mm, about 6mm, about 7 mm, about 8 mm, about 9 mm, about 10 mm, about 11 mm, about 12 mm, about 13 mm, about 14 mm, about 15 mm, or any value or range between those values. (para. 00359).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Kramer to incorporate the maximum liquid fill level may be between about 5 mm and about 15mm as specified in claim 24, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the maximum liquid fill level may be between about 5 mm and about 15mm to provide better mixing of air and moisture pickup include a reduced water temperature for a given delivered air moisture content and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Kramer.
Regarding Claim 28, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 25, wherein a roof of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1; 1; 0023; Kramer) is sloped so as to be substantially non-horizontal in use (Fig. 1-2, 4).
Regarding Claim 29, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 28, wherein at least one of the roof, the baffle (Reference A in Figure B above; Kramer), and wall(s) of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 1; 1; 0023; Kramer) are configured to direct gases exiting the opening (Fig. 3; 11, 12; para. 0027: Kramer) of each the flow tube (Fig. 3; 5, 6; para. 0023, 0025,0027, 0030; Kramer) associated with the first base unit connection port (Fig. 3; 5, 6; para. 0023, 0025,0027, 0030; Kramer) toward and over a surface of liquid in the humidifier liquid chamber (Examiner notes; This limitation is functional; Fig. 3; para. 0027; Kramer).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer, Miller, Smith, as applied to claim 29, in further view of Cerpa et al. (The Open Respiratory Medicine Journal, 2015, 9, (Suppl 2: M5) 104-111), hereafter as Cerpa.
Regarding Claim 30, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 29 (para. 0056),
Modified Kramer does not disclose specifically comprising substantially no dead space in the humidifier liquid chamber in use.
However, Cerpa teaches dead space in the humidifier liquid chamber and why is it harmful (pg. 107; Col. 1; 4.3 Dead Space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include that “substantially” no dead space in the humidifier liquid chamber in use as taught by Cerpa for the purpose increase deadspace may increase minute ventilation, carbon dioxide arterial pressure (PaCO2) and work of breath during pressure support ventilation; also, it may decreases alveolar ventilation, and produces an increase in arterial PaCO2, in order to maintain the same level of alveolar ventilation. However, decreasing it will would improve lung compliance and would reduce the plateau pressure (Col. 1; 4.3 Deadspace).
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer and Miller, as applied to claim 38, in view of Virr (US 20090000620 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 38,
Modified Kramer does not specifically disclose wherein the base of the humidifier liquid chamber is removable from a body of the humidifier liquid chamber.
However, Virr teaches wherein the base (base plate 222; Fig. 3-5; para. 0061, 0069-0070, 0072, 0074) of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 3-5; 112, 220; para, 0072) is removable from a body of the humidifier liquid chamber (para. 0061, 0069-0070, 0072, 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify base of Kramer to include wherein the base of the humidifier liquid chamber is removable from a body of the humidifier liquid chamber as taught by Virr for the purpose of the internal surfaces of the housing may be readily accessed for inspection, cleaning or replacing as a disposable item (para. 0072).
Regarding Claim 41, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 40,
Further Virr teaches comprising one or more base removal features (Fig. 3-4; 218, 226, 224, 126; para.0061, 0069) to assist with removing the base of the humidifier liquid chamber (base plate 222; Fig. 3-5; para. 0061, 0069-0070, 0072, 0074) from the body of the humidifier liquid chamber (Fig. 3-5; 112, 220; para, 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify base of Kramer to include one or more base removal features to assist with removing the base of the humidifier liquid chamber from the body of the humidifier liquid chamber as taught by Virr for the purpose of the internal surfaces of the housing may be readily accessed for inspection, cleaning or replacing as a disposable item and for re-installed into the base of the housing by a simple press fit (para. 0069, 0072).
Regarding Claim 42, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 41, wherein the one or more base removal features (Fig. 3-4; 218, 226, 224, 126; para.0061, 0069; Virr) is/are located between a lower flange of the body of the humidifier liquid chamber (Figs. 3-5) and an outwardly extending flange of the base of the humidifier liquid chamber (Figs. 3-5; para. 0061, 0069)
Regarding Claim 43, Modified Kramer discloses the humidifier liquid chamber of Claim 42, wherein the one or more base removal features comprises a slot (Fig. 3-4; 218, 226, 224, 126; para.0061, 0069; Virr; Examiner notes: 224 and 226 make a slot for 222 to fit into).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 ELLABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785