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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on July 22, 2025. As directed by the amendment, Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claim 21 is a new claim. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the Office Action mailed February 19, 2025:
Objections to the drawings have not been fully resolved and are maintained. Additional objections have also been found. See below for more details.
Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully resolved and are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims. See reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings lack clear, distinct, sufficiently dense and dark lines and characters are blurry and lack consistency in shape (Figs 2, 3A, and 5). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) for more details. It is noted that there’s no replacement drawing for Fig 5 in the amendment filed on July 22, 2025.
The drawings appear to be photographs (Figs 7A-7F). Photographs are ordinarily not permitted in utility applications unless it is the only practicable medium to depict the instant invention. See 37 CFR 1.84(b) for more details.
Reference characters “115”, “122”, “8”, “5”, “7”, “352”, “371” are missing from the specification (Figs 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7E).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the seating portion” should be changed to –the humidification chamber seating portion—for consistency (Claim 14, Line 1).
The phrase “the seating portion” should be changed to –the humidification chamber seating portion—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 1).
The phrase “the seating portion” should be changed to –the humidification chamber seating portion—for consistency (Claim 18, Line 2).
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 5-7, 14, and 21 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.
Claim 5 states “the first heat source” (Line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a first heat source” or the Claim 5 is dependent on Claim 2. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a first heat source”.
Claim 6 states “a second heat source” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what the first heat source is as it is never introduced in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 2. However, Claim 6 does not introduce a first heat source and thus it is unclear how a second heat source is involved. Therefore, the number of heat sources involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there is only one heat source positively claimed.
Claim 14 states “a recessed external surface” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the recessed external surface is the same as the recess mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible that multiple recesses are involved. Therefore, the number of recesses involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 21 states “the heating blanket” (Line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a heating blanket”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a heating blanket”.
Claim 7 is rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 discusses a portable system for delivery of humidified high flow nasal cannula therapy including a respiratory circuit, ambient air conduit, oxygen conduit, blended air conduit, air pump, and humidification chamber; the humidification chamber having a seating portion to seat the chamber within a recess of a housing, the seating portion having a sterilization light source at a top portion of the recess and the light source remaining at the top portion when the humidification chamber is removed from the seating portion.
Several prior art similar to the claimed invention are explained below.
Lewis et al. (US 2007/0175473) discusses a high flow therapy device. Regarding Claim 1, though Lewis is similar to the claimed invention, Lewis lacks a removable humidification chamber, the seating portion, recess, and sterilization light source. Matter (US 5,855,203) was brought in to cure its deficiencies. However, Matter does not discuss anything about a seating portion or recess that allows the light source to remain stationary while the humidification chamber is removed. Matter only discusses the light source being placed above the humidification chamber without further detail on how it is incorporated into a housing. Alami (US 2019/0216963 A1) discusses a breathing treatment apparatus. Though Alami has a light source above the humidifying tank, there is nothing in Alami to suggest that the tank is removable from the housing. There is nothing in Alami that details a recess or seating portion. Other prior art do not teach the removable humidifying tank with the light source in a recess on top of the tank. At most, other prior art have a non-removable humidifying tank, position the light source under or inside the tank, or position the light source outside of the tank in one of the gas conduits. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose Claim 1.
Claims 2-12 and 14-21 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US-20150048530-A1 discusses a humidifier with a UV light within the chamber.
US-20150297877-A1 discusses a treatment chamber with a UV light in the lid.
US-20180135876-A1 discusses a humidifier with UV light on the side of the tray.
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 BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights