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 amendment filed 2/23/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 21 and 26 have been amended. Claims 21-26, 29-33 and 37-40 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant has amended claim 21 to address the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph, which is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s statements on pages 9-10 of Remarks regarding “the tube connector extends…orthogonal to the inlet of the humidifier tub” [Note: this limitation was/is already recited in claim 21, line 22], the Examiner notes that Applicant’s annotated Fig. 7 on page 10 of Remarks points to an inlet that is not the inlet of the humidifier tub/the claimed inlet, and which does not extend in the same direction as the inlet of the humidifier tub.
Per para [0064] of the instant specification, the inlet 22 annotated in Fig. 7 on page 10 of Remarks is the air inlet for the humidifier chamber 16, not that of the humidifier tub 14. The inlet to the humidifier tub is outlet 92 of the channel 90, visible on the top of the humidifier tub in instant Fig. 4. However, since the inlet 92 faces upward/vertically, it is still orthogonal to the tube connector 70, which extends in the longitudinal/horizontal direction of annotated Fig. 7, such that the limitation does have support in the specification as originally filed, just not for the reasons asserted by Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 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. Namely, the newly-added limitation regarding the direction of the tube connector relative to the display screen is an obvious rearrangement of parts in view of Thudor and as taught by Feldhahn [previously cited as the patent of the PGPub applied below] as discussed in the updated rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
A “portable” apparatus as recited by claim 26 is understood to be any apparatus that is not mounted to a wall or furniture or otherwise too heavy or bulky to transport easily.
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.
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 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.
Claims 21, 25, 26, 29-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor et al. (US 7,111,624 B2; hereinafter “Thudor”) in view of Burton et al. (WO 2007/045017 A1; hereinafter “Burton,” where the PGPub of the WIPO document, that is, US 2009/0301482 A1, is referenced in the rejections below for ease of citing to paragraphs), Kenyon et al. (US 2008/0072900 A1; hereinafter “Kenyon”), Edirisuriya et al. (US 6,953,354 B2; hereinafter “Edirisuriya”), Neroni et al. (US 4,473,923; hereinafter “Neroni”), Feldhahn et al. (US 2007/0193580 A1; hereinafter “Feldhahn”) and Brodkin et al. (US 2012/0118291 A1; hereinafter “Brodkin”).
Regarding claims 21 and 33, Thudor discloses a respiratory treatment apparatus (CPAP machine 1 with water chamber 2) (Fig. 1) configured to provide respiratory therapy to a patient (col. 1, lines 11-17), the respiratory treatment apparatus including:
a housing (housing depicted at 3 in Fig. 1) comprising a first housing portion (to the right in Fig. 1) and a second housing portion (to the left in Fig. 1);
a blower positioned in the first housing portion that is configured to generate a flow of pressurized gas (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 1, 40-42 and 51-52);
a humidifier tub (water chamber 2) positionable in the second housing portion (Figs. 1-2), the humidifier tub including i) an inlet (inlet 5/27) to receive the flow of pressurized gas, (ii) a heat conductive bottom surface (heat conductive base 24) to conduct heat to the water to add humidification to the flow of pressurized gas, and (iii) an outlet (outlet 6/28) to provide a humidified flow of pressurized gas and being spaced apart from the inlet such that at least a portion of the humidifier tub is positioned between the inlet and the outlet (Figs. 1-2 in view of Figs. 5-6; col. 4, lines 51-55 and col. 7, lines 53-60);
a heating plate (heater base) positioned in the second housing portion that is configured to be positioned adjacent to the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub supply heat to the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub (Figs. 1 and 11; col. 4, lines 11-12, 33-34 and 51-55);
a tube connector (connection port 9) adjacent to a tube electrical connector having an electrical contact (electrical connection 54, which is inferred to have at least one electrical contact in order to function as an electrical connector) oriented such that all of the tube connector and the tube electrical connector extend orthogonal to the inlet of the humidifier tub (which extends horizontally) in a same longitudinal direction (vertically) (Fig. 1), the tube connector being in fluid communication with the outlet of the humidifier tub to output the humidified flow of pressurized gas (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 51-55) and being configured to connect to an output tube (connection port 9 suitable for receiving a flexible respiratory conduit to deliver humidified air to a patient, col. 4, lines 7-10) for fluid communication to a patient interface (the unclaimed respiratory conduit is fully capable of being in fluid communication with a patient interface [which is not positively recited by the instant claim], and an interface would have been inferred by an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the standard for delivering CPAP therapy), and
a tube electrical connector (electrical connection 54) positioned adjacent the tube connector (Figs. 1-2; col. 5, lines 1-10), wherein the tube electrical connector is provided separately from the tube connector (Figs. 1-2), wherein the tube electrical connector is configured to supply electrical power to one or more heater elements of the output tube (use of heated conduits requires electrical wiring connectors between the conduit a humidifier air source…electrical…connection 54, col. 5, lines 1-5).
While Thudor further discloses/suggests a user interface along an upper face of the first housing portion, wherein the interface faces outward and away from the upper face of the first housing portion in a first direction (up/vertical) (Thudor Fig. 1, where the elements on the top of the right portion of the housing would have been inferred/obvious as control means and associated display by an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as standard means by which to operate a CPAP machine), Thudor does not explicitly recite the user interface comprising a display screen and multiple mechanical buttons, wherein the display screen faces as claimed. However, Burton demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory humidifier art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a user interface to comprise a display screen (a display) and multiple mechanical buttons on (flexible key pad 7) (Fig. 8; para [0043]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Thudor to comprise a user interface as claimed and as taught by Burton, in order to predictably provide standard means by which to operate the CPAP machine.
Modified Thudor is silent regarding the tube electrical connector having a plurality of electrical contacts oriented such that the plurality of electrical contacts extend in the same longitudinal direction as the tube connector, the tube electrical connector positioned adjacent the tube connector so that the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to contact a plurality of corresponding electrical terminals positioned on the output tube, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are provided separately from the tube connector, wherein the tube electrical connector is configured to snap fit with the output tube and the plurality of corresponding electrical terminals, and wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to supply electrical power to one or more heater wires of the outlet tube. However, Edirisuriya demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a respiratory humidifier apparatus to include a tube electrical connector (electrical socket 205) (Figs. 8-9) positioned adjacent the tube connector (tubular protrusion 204) and oriented such that a plurality of electrical contacts (conductors 206, 207) extend in the same longitudinal direction as the tube connector (vertically in Figs. 8-10, and see e.g. Fig. 27) and are configured to contact a plurality of corresponding electrical terminals (pins) positioned on the output tube (col. 6, lines 54-55), wherein the tube electrical connector and the plurality of electrical contacts are provided separately from the tube connector (Figs. 8-9), wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to supply electrical power to one or more heater wires (heater wire 45) that are part of the tube (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 54-59), and Neroni teaches a similar electrical air tube connection arrangement (Figs. 1-2) wherein the tube electrical connector (electrical interlocking member 35) is configured to snap fit with the output tube (hose 24) and the plurality of corresponding electrical terminals (metal pins 53) (resilient shoulders 52…snap out and engage the corresponding shoulders in the opening…prongs 50 and 51 are received by a pair of tubular metal pins 53 in order to provide electrical continuity, col. 5, lines 4-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the tube electrical connector of Thudor to be modified to include a plurality of electrical contacts oriented such that they extend in the same longitudinal direction as the tube connector and are configured to contact a plurality of corresponding electrical terminals positioned on the output tube, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are provided separately from the tube connector, wherein the tube electrical connector is configured to snap fit with the output tube and the plurality of corresponding electrical terminals; and wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to supply electrical power to one or more heater wires that are part of the output tube as taught by Edirisuriya and Neroni, in order to utilize well-known structure for securely connecting heated tubing to the humidifier.
While modified Thudor further teaches wherein the tube connector (connection port 9) extends longitudinally outward from the housing in the longitudinal direction (vertically in Thudor Fig. 1) that is orthogonal to the inlet of the humidifier tub (which extends horizontally towards the rear of the apparatus in Thudor Fig. 1), and Thudor teaches that the ports on the manifold 23 are fully capable of being oriented such that they extend horizontally to the side of the apparatus (see port 16 in Thudor Fig. 3), modified Thudor is silent regarding wherein the tube connector extends longitudinally outward from the housing in a longitudinal direction that is both transverse to the first direction defined by the display screen and orthogonal to the inlet of the humidifier tub. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and Feldhahn teaches that it was known in the respiratory humidifier art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a tube connector (at opening 16) (Fig. 3) to extend longitudinally outward from the housing in a longitudinal direction (horizontally to one side of the device) that is both transverse to the first direction (vertical) defined by the display screen and orthogonal to the inlet (air inlet 21, which aligns with air outlet 18 and extends horizontally at a 90 deg angle from the outlet 22 that is aligned with the tube connector) of the humidifier tub (comprising top part 11 and bottom part 12) (Feldhahn Figs. 1, 3 and 4). Therefore, the instantly claimed arrangement would have been obvious for an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of modified Thudor to try from a finite number of locations for the tube connector/connection port 9 (along with the tube electrical connector/electrical connection 54) associated with manifold 23 of Thudor, with the expected result of locating the tube connector/electrical connector on a side of the apparatus, i.e. the right side in Thudor Fig. 1, see a rough/not to scale depiction below, which would provide the predictable benefit of avoiding unintentional interaction with the user interface while plugging in the output tube by virtue of locating the tube/electrical connector on a different face of the apparatus than the user interface, and which would also predictably avoid kinks that may occur by directing the associated output tube directly horizontally to a reclined user on a bed beside the apparatus rather than initially vertically. There is nothing in modified Thudor that would prevent the use of the instantly claimed configuration, and it appears that modified Thudor would perform equally well with such a modification.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Thudor is silent regarding an insertable electrical connector configured to plug into the first housing portion orthogonal to both the tube electrical connector and the tube connector. However, the device of modified Thudor must be powered in order to function, and Kenyon teaches that it was well known in the respiratory humidifier art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a respiratory humidifier (Figs. 1-3) to include an insertable electrical connector (inferred for insertion into power inlet connector 77, see Figs. 7 and 30) (paras [0135-136]) configured to plug into the first housing portion (i.e. the portion housing flow generator 50) in a direction orthogonal to a side of the device, i.e. facing the rear (Fig. 30; paras [0135-136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thudor to include an insertable electrical connector configured to plug into the first housing portion orthogonal to both the tube electrical connector and the tube connector (i.e. extending horizontally from the rear of modified Thudor) as taught by Kenyon, in order to provide a standard configuration for inserting a power plug/cord into the device in an unobtrusive location to predictably provide power thereto (Kenyon paras [0135-136]).
Modified Thudor is silent regarding a first sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heating plate;
a second sensor configured to measure a temperature of ambient air; and
a controller configured to (i) receive a first signal from the first sensor representing the temperature of the heating plate and a second signal from the second sensor representing the temperature of the ambient air, and (11) in response to a determination that one or more heating plate alarm conditions exist based on at least the temperature of the heating plate and the temperature of the ambient air, trigger an alarm.
However, Burton further teaches that it was well known in the respiratory humidifier art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first sensor (heater plate temperature sensor) (Fig. 6) configured to measure a temperature of the heating plate (paras [0059-60]);
a second sensor (ambient temperature sensor) (Fig. 6) configured to measure a temperature of ambient air (para [0060]);
a controller (microcontroller/processor) (Fig. 6) configured to (i) receive a first signal from the first sensor representing the temperature of the heating plate and a second signal from the second sensor representing the temperature of the ambient air (para [0060]), and (ii) determine that one or more heating plate alarm conditions exist (fault condition relating to the heater plate) for providing over-temperature protection in the event of a fault condition relating to the heater plate (para [0062]), and Brodkin teaches that it was known in the art of detecting respiratory equipment faults before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether one or more fault conditions exist based on, at least, the temperature of a component and the temperature of the ambient air (a temperature reading below ambient, para [0056]), and trigger an alarm in response (issuing warning messages when unusual data…indicates a fault in the equipment or its performance, para [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thudor to include a first sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heating plate; a second sensor configured to measure a temperature of ambient air; and a controller configured to (i) receive a first signal from the first sensor representing the temperature of the heating plate and a second signal from the second sensor representing the temperature of the ambient air, and (11) in response to a determination that one or more heating plate alarm conditions exist based on at least the temperature of the heating plate and the temperature of the ambient air, trigger an alarm as taught by Burton and Brodkin, in order to provide the predictable result of a system with known sensing/control means configured to indicate a fault in either the heater plate temperature sensor or the heating plate itself (i.e. either the temperature of the heating plate isn’t being correctly assessed, or the heater plate is not functioning) so that the user is aware that operation may be compromised, either before a cold-start/adding water or during operation, because a functional heater sensor/heater should register at or near ambient temperature before a cold-start/adding water because the heater will be at or near ambient temperature due to thermodynamics, and a functioning heater will increase in temperature from resting/as compared to ambient during operation.
Regarding claim 25, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, wherein Burton further educates modified Thudor to include a display positioned on the housing (Burton Fig. 8; para [0043]) to output information identifying the alarm (paras [0043], [0100], [0127]), in order to predictably output a visual indication of said alarm.
Regarding claim 26, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, wherein Thudor further discloses/suggests wherein the respiratory treatment apparatus is configured to be portable (Thudor Fig. 1, where the apparatus is clearly a standard tabletop apparatus, as would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the clear purpose of providing a personal apparatus that can be transported for travel).
Regarding claim 29, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, wherein Edirisuriya and Neroni further educate modified Thudor to include means for connecting the output tube to the tube connector that is a connector/cuff (female portion 310 of a single port connector) on the breathing tube for connecting to the tubular humidifier outlet (Edirisuriya Figs. 7-13, paras [0057], [0059] and [0064]), e.g. one including some sort of latching/snap/tongue-in-groove arrangement between the two components as further taught by Neroni (Fig. 2; see lip 46 and groove 48), in order to provide the expected result of a tube that is securely connected to the humidifier outlet so it does not become inadvertently detached during use.
Regarding claim 30, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, wherein modified Thudor further discloses/teaches including the output tube (Thudor col. 5, lines 1-5), wherein the tube electrical connector and the tube connector are shaped to contemporaneously mate with a corresponding cuff (Edirisuriya sleeve 211; Neroni connector 26) of the output tube (Edirisuriya Figs. 8-11; Neroni Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 31, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 30, wherein modified Thudor further teaches wherein the cuff of the output tube includes a heel (Edirisuriya electrical port 212; comprising opening 49 in Neroni) structured to releasably mate with the tube electrical connector (Edirisuriya Figs. 8-11; Neroni Figs. 1-2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gupton (US 4,564,748; hereinafter “Gupton”).
Regarding claim 22, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, but modified Thudor is silent regarding wherein the controller provides the determination that the one or more heating plate alarm conditions exist by determining that the temperature of the heating plate is less than a minimum threshold heating plate temperature. However, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that even if the temperature of the heating plate is at or above ambient, it still may not be functioning correctly if it isn’t able to reach a sufficient temperature to provide the required gas temp/humidity, as taught by Gupton (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni and Brodkin to include determining that the temperature of the heating plate is less than a minimum threshold heating plate temperature as taught/suggested by general knowledge and Gupton, in order to provide the predictable result of alerting a user to a potential heater failure/malfunction (or a heater sensor failure).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn, Brodkin and Gupton as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sherman et al. (US 2010/0292544 A1; hereinafter “Sherman”).
Regarding claim 23, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn, Brodkin and Gupton teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 22, but modified Thudor is silent regarding wherein the controller provides the determination that the one or more heating plate alarm conditions exist by comparing the temperature of the ambient air to a minimum threshold ambient air temperature. However, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that even if the temperature of the heating plate is at or above ambient, the ambient temperature may be too cold to allow the heater to reach a sufficient temperature to provide the required gas temp/humidity, as suggested by Sherman (Appendix, service code 3141). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn, Brodkin and Gupton to include comparing the temperature of the ambient air to a minimum threshold ambient air temperature as suggested by Sherman, in order to provide the predictable result of confirming a reason as to why the heater plate might not be functioning properly/able to reach proper temp (i.e. the ambient temperature is below a minimum operating temperature for the device), so that the user can be alerted to a potential solution for addressing the issue (i.e. moving the device to a warmer place).
Regarding claim 24, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn, Brodkin, Gupton and Sherman teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 23, wherein Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn, Brodkin, Gupton and Sherman would have rendered obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have rendered obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the one or more heating plate alarm conditions is determined to exist when (i) the temperature of the heating plate is determined to be less than the minimum threshold heating plate temperature and (ii) the temperature of the ambient air is determined to be greater than the minimum threshold ambient air temperature, as discussed above regarding claim 22, because if the heater plate is registering at less than a minimum functioning temperature, i.e. a sufficient temperature to provide the required gas temp/humidity, but the ambient temperature is within an acceptable range for operation (i.e. above a minimum therefore), it is possible that either the heater or the heater sensor is has failed because the heater should not be colder than the minimum functioning temperature when operating correctly at an acceptable ambient temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the determination of Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Brodkin, Gupton and Sherman to include wherein the one or more heating plate alarm conditions is determined to exist when (i) the temperature of the heating plate is determined to be less than the minimum threshold heating plate temperature and (ii) the temperature of the ambient air is determined to be greater than the minimum threshold ambient air temperature as further taught/suggested by the teachings of Gupton and Sherman, in order to provide the predictable result of alerting a user to a potential heater failure/malfunction (or a heater sensor failure).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Klasek et al. (US 2008/0105257 A1; hereinafter “Klasek”).
Regarding claim 32, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 30, but modified Thudor is silent regarding wherein the cuff of the output tube includes a printed circuit board. However, Klasek demonstrates that it was well known in the heated respiratory tube art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the cuff (comprising connector block 56a) of the output tube (patient conduit 4) includes a printed circuit board (printed circuit board 56c) (Fig. 22; para [0179]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thudor to include wherein the cuff of the output tube includes a printed circuit board as taught by Klasek, in order to provide the predictable result of a local means for providing and/or facilitating control of the heated conduit (Klasek para [0179]).
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2009/0194106 A1; hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, wherein Thudor further discloses a movable member (securing latch 19) to releasably retain the humidifier tub (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 14-32), but Thudor is silent regarding wherein the movable member also serves to urge the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub against the heating plate and is adjustable from a first position to a closed position to releasably retain the humidifier tub. However, Smith teaches that a similar arrangement/movable member (securing catch 44 in combination with stop 46) (Figs. 9-10) was known in the respiratory humidifier before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to urge the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub against the heating plate (closure of the catch 44 re-engages the spring [that pushes the humidifier tub 50 down against the heater plate 42] to ensure a good thermal connection between the humidifier tub 50 and the heater plate, para [0061]) and to be adjustable from a first position to a closed position to releasably retain the humidifier tub (Figs. 9-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thudor to include a movable member to releasably retain the humidifier tub and urge the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub against the heating plate and is adjustable from a first position to a closed position to releasably retain the humidifier tub as taught by Smith, in order to provide the predictable result of a known means for ensuring a good thermal connection between the humidifier tub and the heating plate for efficient heating.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kohn et al. (US 2003/0169588 A1; hereinafter “Kohn”).
Regarding claim 40, Thudor in view of Burton, Kenyon, Edirisuriya, Neroni, Feldhahn and Brodkin teaches the respiratory treatment apparatus of claim 21, but modified Thudor is silent regarding a light, to illuminate the contents of the humidifier tub. However, Kohn demonstrates that such lights (lamp 22) were well known in the humidifier art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Fig. 1), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Thudor to include such a light, in order to provide the predictable results of a standard means by which to aid in assessing the amount of liquid in the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While the prior art of Smith ‘106 teaches a moveable member to urge the heat conductive bottom of the humidifier tub against the heating plate (see catch 44 in Smith Figs. 9-10), Smith does not teach said member comprising a lid structure having a viewing member, see e.g. instant Figs. 4-5. Accordingly, claim 39 is considered to patentably define over the prior art by reciting the features discussed above in combination with all the other features recited by the claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: if claim 21, line 16, were amended to read “outlet, wherein the inlet is located on an upper wall of the humidifier tub and the outlet is located on a side wall of the humidifier tub;” as supported by instant Fig. 4, this would define the remainder of the claims over the art of record, because Thudor teaches that the inlet and outlet of the tub should both be on a side wall of the tub to enable their connection to the manifold in conjunction with the slide-on motion of the tub (Thudor col. 7, lines 59-67, in view of Thudor Fig. 1), and see similarly Feldhahn Figs. 1, 3 and 4, which teaches the inlet and outlet on side walls of a tub for enabling their connection in connection with the slide-in motion of the tub. The Examiner made repeated attempts to contact Applicant’s representative Sean O’Brien between 4/29/2026 and 5/9/2026 to inquire as to whether Applicant would be interesting in entering these amendments via Examiner’s Amendment to place the case into condition for allowance but none of the phone calls or voicemails were returned.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights