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
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to Non-Provisional Application No. 15/525,257 filed May 8, 2017 now Patent No. 11,278,689; National Stage Application PCT/NZ2015/050193 filed November 17, 2015; and to U.S. Provisional Application 62/080,814 filed November 17, 2014.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed November 18, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 17 has been amended. Thus, claims 2-5 and 8-21 are presently pending in this application.
Claims 17-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddart et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0113690) in view of Goicoechea (U.S. Pat. No. 3,757,082).
Claims 2-5, 8-16, and 21 were previously indicated as allowable.
Applicant's amendments necessitated the application of new grounds of rejection in light of prior art, shown below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddart et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0113690; hereinafter: “Huddart”) in view of Grime (U.S. Pat. No. 4,132,883) in view of Goicoechea (U.S. Pat. No. 3,757,082).
Regarding Claim 17, Huddart discloses a humidification chamber (4; Fig. 1, 4) configured for use within a humidification system (1; Fig. 1, 2, 4), comprising: an inlet (10; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0065, 0068) configured to receive respiratory gases from a ventilator (3, 13; Fig. 1, 3, 4; ¶¶ 0065-0069, 0071, 0072) and an outlet (11; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0074, 0089) configured to output the respiratory gases to a patient interface (¶ 0062; “nasal cannula”, “mask”); a wall (A, Fig. A annotated below); a base (B, Fig. A annotated below) connected to the wall (Fig. 1), the base defining a first perimeter (at B, Fig. A annotated below); an upper surface (C, Fig. A annotated below) connected to the wall; the wall being configured to define a second perimeter (along A, Fig. A annotated below) located between the base and the upper surface of the humidification chamber (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A, Adapted from Figure 1 of Huddart.
Huddart does not specifically disclose the humidification chamber wherein the second perimeter being larger than the first perimeter at the base and a cooling structure coupled to the wall or the base, configured to reduce temperature of the respiratory gases.
Grime teaches a humidification chamber (11 Fig. 1) comprising a base (A, Fig. B annotated below) connected to a wall (B, Fig. B annotated below), the base defining a first perimeter (at A, Fig. B annotated below); an upper surface (C, Fig. B annotated below) connected to the wall; the wall being configured to define a second perimeter (along B, Fig. B annotated below) located between the base and the upper surface of the humidification chamber (Fig. 1), the second perimeter being larger than the first perimeter at the base (Fig. 1; Examiner notes: Grime discloses the wall tapering out from the base to provide a greater volume to contain liquid.) for the purpose of providing the humidification chamber with an increased volume because volume increases with the wall having a greater perimeter.
PNG
media_image2.png
534
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B, Adapted from Figure 1 of Grime.
Goicoechea teaches a humidification chamber (106; Fig. 8; col 5, ln 32-60) comprising a cooling structure (126; Fig. 8) coupled to a wall (exterior of 106; Fig. 8), configured to reduce temperature of the respiratory gases(col 5, ln 45-60) for the purpose of providing a series of generally planar fins (126; Fig. 8) provided out of materials which are more quickly heat conductive that dissipate heat to prevent any undue buildup of heat in the humidification chamber (col 5, ln 45-60).
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 humidification chamber of Huddart to include the second perimeter being larger than the first perimeter at the base as taught by Grime and the passive cooling mechanism configured to facilitate heat loss from the humidification chamber as taught by Goicoechea for the purpose of providing the humidification chamber with an increased volume because volume increases with the wall having a greater perimeter and providing a series of generally planar fins (See Goicoechea: 126; Fig. 8) provided out of materials which are more quickly heat conductive that dissipate heat to prevent any undue buildup of heat in the humidification chamber (See Goicoechea: col 5, ln 45-60), respectively.
Regarding Claim 18, the modified device of Huddart discloses the humidification chamber wherein the outlet is configured to receive a sensor (See Huddart: 23; Fig. 1; ¶ 0089).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified device of Huddart discloses the humidification chamber wherein the sensor is configured to measure a temperature of a gases flow (See Huddart: ¶ 0089).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified device of Huddart discloses the humidification chamber wherein the wall of the humidification chamber bulges between a base (A, Figure B annotated above) and an upper surface (B, Figure B annotated above) of the humidification chamber [See Huddart: Fig. 1; Examiner notes: Huddart depicts the humidification chamber extending out (i.e. bulges out) (C, Figure B annotated above) from the upper surface to the base surface].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations with respect to “the wall being configured to define a second perimeter located between the base and the upper surface of the humidification chamber, the second perimeter being larger than the first perimeter at the base” as recited in independent claim 17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection in the previous office action (e.g., do not apply to claim limitations previously rejected). All arguments directed to new limitations in the amended claims are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection Huddart in view of Grime in view of Goicoechea, shown above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art of record Huddart et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0113690) discloses a humidification chamber (4; Fig. 1, 4) configured for use within a humidification system (1; Fig. 1, 2, 4), the humidification chamber comprising: a wall (the exterior surfaces of humidification chamber 4 at A, Fig. B annotated below); an inlet (10; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0065, 0068); and an outlet (11; Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0074, 0089); wherein the humidification chamber is configured to hold a volume of liquid (¶¶ 0065-0066, 0069), and the humidification chamber is configured to humidify allow gases to pass over the volume of liquid from the inlet of the humidification chamber to the outlet of the humidification chamber (¶¶ 0065-0069).
PNG
media_image3.png
291
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure B, Adapted from Figure 1 of Huddart.
Goicoechea (U.S. Pat. No. 3,757,082) disclose a humidification chamber (106; Fig. 8; col 5, ln 32-60) comprising a passive cooling mechanism (126; Fig. 8) configured to facilitate heat loss from the humidification chamber (col 5, ln 45-60) for the purpose of providing a series of generally planar fins (126; Fig. 8) provided out of materials which are more quickly heat conductive that dissipate heat to prevent any undue buildup of heat in the humidification chamber (col 5, ln 45-60).
Prior art of record Huddart et al. and Goicoechea alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious the humidification chamber wherein the wall of the humidification chamber comprising a fin or a plurality of fins protruding from an upper portion of the humidification chamber and extending in an upward direction such that the wall of the humidification chamber is configured to facilitate heat loss from the humidification chamber whereby gases passing over the volume of liquid can be cooled and the humidification chamber can receive increased heating from a heater plate, as recited in independent claim 2 and by reference in independent claim 11.
Prior art of record Makinson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0272639) fails to remedy the deficiencies of Huddart et al. and Goicoechea.
Thus, independent claim 2 and by reference in independent claim 11, and claims 3-5, 8-16, and 21 by dependency, are rendered allowable.
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 ELLIOT S RUDDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7634. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F usually 9-7 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLIOT S RUDDIE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785