DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on March 19, 2024. As directed by the amendment: claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-18, 23-29, and 32-36 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-36 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 16-18, 20, 31-32, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US 2018/0344963).
Regarding claim 1, the assembly of Taylor discloses a sensor module assembly (fig. 3A, sensor block assembly 300) for use inside a respiratory therapy apparatus (fig. 3A, 300 is connected to provided oxygen and passes the oxygen through to cannula 395) that includes a pneumatic block assembly (fig. 1, portable oxygen concentrator 100 includes a compressor), the sensor module assembly comprising:
a flow manifold (fig. 3C, the air passages within 300) comprising an inlet (fig. 3C, oxygen sensor port 365) positioned at a first end of the sensor module assembly and configured to seal against the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 3A, receives oxygen via a connection to valve manifold 310), an outlet at a second end of the sensor module assembly opposite the first end (fig. 3C, cannula output connection), and a main pneumatic path between the inlet and the outlet (fig. 3C, the air passage between 365 and 380, see fig. 3A, the air flows from 360 to 395); and
a sensor module comprising a plurality of sensors on a printed circuit board ([0037] states that the oxygen sensor 360 and other sensors mate directly to the circuit board), wherein the sensor module is pneumatically and fixedly coupled to the flow manifold (fig. 3C, circuit board 335 is shown to be pneumatically coupled to pressure sensor 340 and breath detection sensor 370 and fixedly coupled via screws).
Regarding claim 2, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the sensor module is configured to be substantially secured for use within the respiratory therapy apparatus by its pneumatic couplings (fig. 3C, circuit board 335 is secured in part by the friction against pneumatic couplings at 340 and 370).
Regarding claim 3, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the inlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling with an outlet of the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 6C, compliant common member 620 is used to couple the sensor block assembly 300 to the product valve manifold, see [0051], which receives air from the compressor, see fig. 1) and wherein the outlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling with a pneumatic path (fig. 3C, output connection 380 feeds into a cannula) associated with a housing structure of the respiratory therapy apparatus (fig. 2, oxygen output 14 emerges from housing 101), the pneumatic path being adapted for supplying breathable gas to a patient interface ([0036] states that the gas flowing through the cannula output connection 380 feeds to the patient).
Regarding claim 4, the assembly of Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the inlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling with an outlet of the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 1, compressor feeds air to the product valve manifold 10, fig. 3A shows the inlet of the sensor block assembly 300 connected to the valve manifold to receive air from the compressor) and wherein the outlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling with a pneumatic path of a housing cover panel of the respiratory therapy apparatus (fig. 1, shows oxygen output 14 coupled to oxygen concentrator 100 and poking out of the housing 101), the pneumatic path being adapted for supplying breathable gas to a patient interface ([0036] states that the gas flowing through the cannula output connection 380 feeds to the patient).
Regarding claim 5, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the flow manifold comprises a cylinder (fig. 3C, the pneumatic path between inlet 365 and the cannula output connection 380 where inlet 365 is shown to be a cylinder), the cylinder comprising the main pneumatic path, and wherein the cylinder has a central axis from the inlet of the flow manifold to the outlet of the flow manifold, the central axis being along a length of the cylinder (see annotated fig. 3C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
854
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the flow manifold further comprises a plurality of gas ports (fig. 3C, the sensors 340, 360, and 370 emerge from the manifold within the sensor block 300), the plurality of gas ports being pneumatically coupled to the main pneumatic path (fig. 3A, each of the sensors are pneumatically coupled with the oxygen sensor and eventually the cannula output).
Regarding claim 7, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 6 and further discloses that each of the plurality of gas ports are cylindrical (fig. 3C, the openings to each port 340, 370, and 360 are cylindrical), and wherein each cylindrical gas port has a central axis (see annotated fig. 3C below).
PNG
media_image2.png
854
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 7 and further discloses the central axes of the plurality of cylindrical gas ports are substantially parallel (see annotated fig. 3C above, the central axes of sensors 340, 370, and 380 are substantially parallel).
Regarding claim 9, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 7 and further discloses the central axes of the plurality of cylindrical gas ports are generally perpendicular to the central axis of the cylinder of the flow manifold (see annotated fig. 3C above which shows the sensor central axes are perpendicular to the cylinder defined as between inlet 365 and the entrance to output connection 380).
Regarding claim 10, the assembly of Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 6 and further discloses the flow manifold further comprises a support plate (fig. 3C, the housing of sensor block assembly 300), the support plate configured as a shelf at a side of the flow manifold and integrated with a set of the plurality of gas ports (see annotated fig. 3C above, the housing of 300 extends sideways from the central axis of the cylinder defined between 365 and 380 and is integrated with gas ports 340, 370, 380, and 360).
Regarding claim 12, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the flow manifold comprising a plurality of mounting posts (see annotated fig. 3C below, the screws enter the mounting posts).
PNG
media_image3.png
854
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 12 and further discloses the plurality of mounting posts (see annotated fig. 3C above) comprises at least one fixing post configured for receiving a fastener of the sensor module for fixedly coupling the sensor module to the flow manifold (see annotated fig. 3C above, screws are shown entering each of the mounting posts to fix circuit board 335 to the sensor block assembly 300).
Regarding claim 17, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 12 and further discloses each of the plurality of mounting posts has a central axis, wherein the central axes of the plurality of mounting pasts are substantially parallel (see annotated fig. 3C above, each of the mounting posts has a central axis that aligns with the screw connecting lines which shows them to be parallel)
Regarding claim 18, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 17 and further discloses the flow manifold further comprises a plurality of gas ports, the plurality of gas ports being pneumatically coupled to the main pneumatic path (fig. 3C, sensors 340 and 370), and wherein the central axes of the plurality of mounting posts are generally parallel to the central axes of the plurality of gas ports (see annotated fig. 3C below).
PNG
media_image4.png
854
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the inlet of the flow manifold comprises a male coupling (figs. 6A-6E, the inlets of sensor block 300 are shown to be smaller than the outlets of the other component 610 for insertion into the larger coupling via compliant member 620) and the outlet of the pneumatic block assembly comprises a female coupling (fig. 3A, valve manifold 310 is defined as the outlet of the pneumatic block assembly and connected to sensor block 300, fig. 6D shows sensor block assembly having a smaller port which inserts into the larger port of component 610 via member 620 thereby making the outlet of the pneumatic block assembly a female coupling).
Regarding claim 31, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of sensors includes a pressure sensor (fig. 3C, pressure sensor 340) and a flow sensor (fig. 3C, breath detection sensor 370 which is measures breathing rate and onset of inhalation to control oxygen delivery, see [0032]).
Regarding claim 32, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 31 and further discloses the plurality of sensors further includes a temperature sensor ([0035] states that oxygen gas temperature sensor 390 is mounted on circuit board 335).
Regarding claim 34, the assembly of Taylor discloses a respiratory therapy apparatus (fig. 2, portable oxygen concentrator 100) for providing a breathable gas to a patient interface for a respiratory therapy ([0002] states that gas is delivered for therapeutic purposes, and [0029] states oxygen is delivered with patient inhalation which constitutes respiratory therapy), the respiratory therapy apparatus comprising:
a sensor module assembly (fig. 3A, sensor block assembly 300) that includes a pneumatic block assembly (fig. 1, portable oxygen concentrator 100 includes a compressor), the sensor module assembly comprising:
a flow manifold (fig. 3C, the air passages within 300) comprising an inlet (fig. 3C, oxygen sensor port 365) positioned at a first end of the sensor module assembly and configured to seal against the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 3A, receives oxygen via a connection to valve manifold 310), an outlet at a second end of the sensor module assembly opposite the first end (fig. 3C, cannula output connection), and a main pneumatic path between the inlet and the outlet (fig. 3C, the air passage between 365 and 380, see fig. 3A, the air flows from 360 to 395); and
a sensor module comprising a plurality of sensors on a printed circuit board ([0037] states that the oxygen sensor 360 and other sensors mate directly to the circuit board), wherein the sensor module is pneumatically and fixedly coupled to the flow manifold (fig. 3C, circuit board 335 is shown to be pneumatically coupled to pressure sensor 340 and breath detection sensor 370 and fixedly coupled via screws); and
an external housing to receive the sensor module assembly and the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 2, housing 101 contains the sensor assembly and compressor 2).
Regarding claim 35, the assembly of Taylor discloses the apparatus of claim 34 and further discloses the inlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling (see figs. 6D and 6E, sensor assembly 300 can be removably coupled via compliant common member 620) with an outlet of the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 3A, valve manifold 310 is defined as an outlet associated with the pneumatic block assembly because it receives oxygen from compressor, see fig. 1, where compressor feeds oxygen to valve manifold 10) and wherein the outlet of the flow manifold is configured for removable coupling with a pneumatic path associated with the external housing of the respiratory therapy apparatus (fig. 2, sensor block 300 is contained within housing 101 which allows oxygen to escape via coupling to oxygen output 14), the pneumatic path being adapted for supplying breathable gas to a patient interface (fig. 3A, is part of the pneumatic path where the oxygen eventually is provided to the patient via cannula, see [0032]), wherein the external housing comprises a housing cover panel (fig. 2, housing 101 includes panels on the top and side of the portable oxygen concentrator 100 where the panel which includes the opening for oxygen output 14 can be considered a housing cover panel).
Regarding claim 36, the assembly of Taylor discloses the apparatus of claim 34 and further discloses the sensor modules assembly (fig. 3A, 300) is configured for seal-based securement (figs. 6D and 6E, 300 is secured to another component 610 via a common compliant member 620) within the external housing (fig. 2, the sensor block 300 is contained within housing 101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0292864).
Regarding claim 11, the assembly of Taylor discloses the limitations of 10 and further discloses a breath detection sensor (fig. 3A, 370) which is input into a microcontroller for maintaining required flow rates ([0032]), but Taylor does not expressly state that the set of gas ports comprises a first and second port for sensing a flow rate within the flow manifold.
However, Zhang teaches of a flow sensor which measures flow rate using a differential pressure (abstract) between a first and second port (fig. 1, 32 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the breath detection sensor of the assembly of Taylor with the flow sensor as taught by Zhang as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result of being able to detect breathing rate.
8. Claim(s) 13-15, 19, 21-22, and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor.
Regarding claim 13, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 12 and further discloses a plurality of the mounting posts and a plurality of gas ports (see annotated fig. 3C below), but does not expressly disclose that a plurality of mounting posts are on a first side of the main pneumatic path and a plurality of gas ports are on an opposing side of the main pneumatic path.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the positions of the inlet and the breath detection sensor (see annotated fig. 3C below) of the assembly of Taylor because there is no criticality regarding the position of the mounting posts and gas ports. Further, it appears the assembly of Taylor would perform equally well with the gas ports and mounting posts one opposing sides of the main pneumatic path.
PNG
media_image5.png
870
1074
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 13 and further reads on the mounting posts and gas ports are configured to support the sensor module (fig. 3C, gas ports and mounting posts increase friction to secure circuit board 335 to the housing of sensor block assembly 300).
Regarding claim 15, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 14 and further reads on the plurality of mounting posts are configured to support the printed circuit board (figs. 3B and 3C show the mounting posts screwing into the circuit board 335) and the plurality of gas ports are configured to support a sensor of the plurality of sensors ([0035] states the sensors are mounted on the circuit board where the gas ports contact to support the sensors).
Regarding claim 19, the assembly of Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1, and further discloses the sensor block as having a male coupling and the outlet of the pneumatic block as having a female coupling (figs. 6A-6E).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the positions of the male and female couplings as an obvious design choice because there is no criticality regarding the which side is a male or female coupling. Further, it appears the assembly of Taylor would perform equally well with the swapped coupling in providing airflow through the main pneumatic path.
Regarding claim 21, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 19 and further reads on a tubular seal (fig. 6D, compliant common member 620 can form a tube), the tubular seal configured for mating between the male coupling and the female coupling (see figs. 6D-6E), the tubular seal providing a pneumatic seal between the inlet of the flow manifold and the outlet of the pneumatic block assembly (see figs. 6A-6E, member 620 assists in coupling the male and female couplings to create a pneumatic seal).
Regarding claim 22, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 19 and further reads on a face seal (fig. 6D, compliant common member 620 seals the face of the female coupling, see fig. 6B), the face seal configured for mating between the male coupling and the female coupling (see figs. 6D-6E), the face seal providing a pneumatic seal between the inlet of the flow manifold and the outlet of the pneumatic block assembly (see figs. 6A-6E, member 620 assists in coupling the male and female couplings to create a pneumatic seal).
Regarding claim 24, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 21 and further reads on a gas connector system that can be employed in other internal gas connections ([0046]), but does not expressly disclose a multiport seal unit configured to pneumatically seal the plurality of gas ports of the flow manifold with the plurality of sensors of the sensor module.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas connector system including the compliant common member (fig. 6C, 620) to connect the plurality of gas ports with the plurality of sensors so as to provide a compliant connection that minimizes transmission of noise and vibration between elements ([0048]).
Regarding claim 25, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 24, but is silent on if the manufacturing process of the gas connector system includes overmoulding the tubular seal and multiport seal to the flow manifold. However, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 26, the assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 4 and further reads on a gas connector system that can be employed in other internal gas connections ([0046]), but does not expressly disclose a main seal, the main seal configured for sealing coupling of the outlet of the flow manifold (fig. 3C, cannula output connection 380) with the pneumatic path of the housing cover panel (fig. 2, oxygen output 14).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas connector system including the compliant common member (fig. 6C, 620) to connect the cannula filter assembly (fig. 3A, 320) with the cannula output to patient (fig. 3A, 395) so as to provide a compliant connection that minimizes transmission of noise and vibration between elements ([0048]).
Regarding claim 27, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 4 and further reads on a multiport seal unit, the multiport seal unit configured to (1) pneumatically seal the plurality of gas ports of the flow manifold with the plurality of sensors of the sensor module (see the rejection to claim 24 above), and (2) pneumatically seal the outlet of the flow manifold with the pneumatic path of a housing cover of the respiratory therapy apparatus (see the rejection to claim 26 above).
Regarding claim 28, the modified assembly of Tayler reads on the limitations of claim 27 and further reads on the multiport seal (fig. 6C, compliant common member 620 includes areas for two different connections) comprises a flow sensor seal and a pressure sensor seal separated by a first seal spacing extension (see annotated fig. 6A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
387
909
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 28, but is silent on the multiport seal comprising a main seal separated from the flow sensor seal and the pressure sensor seal by a second seal spacing extension, the main seal configured for sealing coupling of the outlet of the flow manifold with the pneumatic path of the housing cover panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the main seal and multiport seal with another seal spacing extension (see annotated fig. 3C below) as an obvious design choice because there is no criticality regarding the connection of the seals. Further, it appears modified assembly of Taylor would perform equally well with a second seal spacing extension for sealing the pneumatic paths.
PNG
media_image7.png
854
705
media_image7.png
Greyscale
9. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Decker (US 2017/0241581).
Regarding claim 23, the modified assembly of Taylor reads on the limitations of claim 21, but is silent on the tubular seal being configured for (1) insertion within the female coupling and (2) receiving the male coupling within the tubular seal.
However, Decker teaches of a seal (fig. 1, 113) outside of male insert (fig. 1, 110) and configured to attach inside the bore (fig. 1, 103) of the female coupling body (fig. 1, 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the tubular seal of Taylor with the seal as taught by Decker as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result of sealing the pneumatic path.
10. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Bloch et al. (US 5,549,105).
Regarding claim 30, the assembly of Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1, but is silent on the manufacturing process and material of the manifold.
However, Bloch teaches of a manifold which is formed of a molded thermoplastic material (col. 4, lines 16-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the material of the manifold of Taylor with the thermoplastic material as taught by Bloch as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result of forming a pneumatic path.
11. Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Fleming et al. (US 2017/0363096).
Regarding claim 33, Taylor discloses the assembly of claim 1, but is silent on the pneumatic block assembly (fig. 1, compressor 2) comprising a housing that includes a volute with a motor and impeller configured to produce air at a positive pressure at the outlet of the pneumatic block.
However, Fleming teaches of a pneumatic block (fig. 2A, motor 4144, volute 2052, and impeller 2050) which generates a flow of gas ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the compressor of Taylor with the motor, volute, and pneumatic block as taught by Fleming as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result of generating a flow of gas (Fleming [0056]).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1 and 34 that assembly 300 in fig. 3C of Taylor is not a “manifold” as presented on page 10 paragraphs 3-4 through page 13 paragraph 1 of the Remarks, Taylor discloses that in fig. 3C the pressure sensors 340, 370 and the temperature sensor 390 are mounted to the circuit board 335 and pneumatic connections are made directly between the sensors and the assembly (see [0035] and annotated fig. 3C below). Therefore, the received from oxygen sensor port travels to oxygen sensor 360 then branches at the breath detection sensor 370 into a path to the circuit board (pneumatic connection as detailed in [0035]) and a path to the cannula filter assembly 320 (see fig. 3A). The two branching paths means that the assembly can be considered a manifold.
PNG
media_image8.png
864
834
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 5 that sensor assembly block 300 does not include the flow manifold comprising a cylinder as presented on page 13 paragraphs 2-5 of the Remarks, Taylor fig. 3C shows ports for oxygen to enter (fig. 3C, oxygen sensor port 365 and port 355) and pneumatic connections between sensors and the assembly which are also cylinders (fig. 3C, pressure sensors 340 and 370). The manifold of assembly 300 includes the oxygen sensor port 365 which is shown to be a cylinder.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 33 that the blower of Fleming would render the device of Taylor unsuited for its intended purpose as presented on page 13 paragraph 5 through page 14 paragraph 1, Taylor in paragraph [0024] simply states that the compressor can produce at a pressure “up to 3 bar”, meaning pressures below 3 bar are also possible such as the pressure provided by the blower of Fleming. Further, Taylor in paragraph [0032] states that a microcontroller is used to control compressor speed to maintain target pressure ratios meaning the pressure is dependent on how fast the compressor is being controlled to go. This further suggests that the device of Taylor is operable at pressures below 3 bar. Additionally, the blower of Fleming is used to reference known pressure generators which use a motor, volute, and impeller for driving air, and states that the pressure generator can deliver a supply of air at about 120 liters/minute which appears to be greater than the rate of the compressor of Taylor which states in paragraph [0024] that “pressurized air is discharged from the compressor 2 at a rate of approximately 5 SLPM to 15 SLPM per LPM of oxygen produced at a pressure up to 3 bar.”
13. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 paragraphs 2-3 of Remarks, filed 1/14/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 112f have been fully considered and are persuasive. The term “pneumatic block assembly” is no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112f and instead is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Frater et al. (US 2010/0006097) discloses a blower for use in respiratory treatment that uses a motor impeller and a volute. Chalvignac et al. (US 2013/0008444) discloses a flow generator that uses a servo-controlled motor, volute, and impeller to form a blower and a brake for the motor to rapidly reduce speed of the blower.
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights