DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a preliminary amendment to the claims on 11/09/2023. As per the preliminary amendments, claims 1-2 have been amended, claims 3-16 have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 contains the language “The present invention discloses” which is an implied phrase and should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 5-10, and 13-16 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 is written in an unclear manner. The claim includes the language “closing the solenoid power supply PCB terminal to close” in lines 2-3 which appears to claim a solenoid that acts upon itself to close itself. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as --operating the solenoid power supply PCB terminal to close the solenoid.--
Claim 7 recites the term “if” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not the limitation that follows is being positively claimed, or is merely optional.
Claim 9 recites the term “if” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not the limitation that follows is being positively claimed, or is merely optional.
Claim 13 recites the term “if” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not the limitation that follows is being positively claimed, or is merely optional.
Any remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff et al. (US Pat. 8,733,348) in view of Schueller (US Pub. 2013/0228177) in view of Buswell et al. (US Pat. 10,589,050).
Regarding claim 1, Korneff discloses an automatic Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) (see Col. 3 lines 50-55) humidifier water chamber replenishing and sanitizing system (see Fig. 4 device 400, including humidification component 402, holding water volume 404, being replenished via water filling line controlled by water level control element 418 to deliver fresh sanitized water), comprising: a container (see Fig. 4 some source of water connected to water filling line 416); a water pump (see Col. 10 lines 20-25 where water level control element 418 can be a pump); an auto top-off (ATO) printed circuit board (PCB) (see Fig. 4 control module 420 and Col. 10 lines 4-14 where the control module receives water level data and configures data to operate the device, including operation of water level control element 418); a CPAP humidifier water chamber (see Fig. 4 humidification component 402); and a first sensor and a second sensor connected to the CPAP humidifier water chamber (see Fig. 4 sensors 410a/ 410b), wherein: the ATO PCB connects to the first sensor and the second sensor, and controls the water pump (see Col. 9 lines 37-45); and when the first sensor senses a low water level within the CPAP water chamber, the first sensor triggers the water pump to start pumping water (as best described in Col. 8 line 63 to Col. 9 line 4 where a drop of water level sensed by the sensor system results in an opening of the water level control element (pump) to refill the chamber), the ATO PCB starts the water pump, and water is pumped from the container into the CPAP water chamber (see Col. 10 lines 20-35 where the control module 410 activates the water level control element (pump) to bring water from the water source through water filling line 416).
Korneff lacks a detailed description of the water pump being arranged inside the container.
However, Schueller teaches a CPAP humidification system, where a container for holding an auxiliary liquid reservoir has an electric pump inside the container (see Fig. 14D where electric pump 152D acts as a container to hold the auxiliary liquid reservoir 134D, with the pump components being within the shell of the electric pump 152D; see also [0105]-[0106]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water source/ container of Korneff to be an auxiliary liquid reservoir combined with an electric pump as taught by Schueller, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of detached liquid reservoir and pumping system for another, to yield the predictable result of providing a reserve source of water to be pumped into the humidifier. Further, the auxiliary reservoir and pump of Schueller negates the need for gravity, and can thus be placed anywhere in relation to the humidifier (Schueller; see [0107]).
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of an ATO PCB that controls the first and second sensor. It is noted that the controller of Korneff is an electrical device, and would almost certainly be a PCB as is commonplace across all technologies.
However, Buswell teaches a respiratory humidification system where a controller can be configured as circuitry which is able to selectively control a series of sensors (see Col. 12 lines 15-52 where the controller can include integrated circuitry on the intermediate printed circuit board (214; see Col. 26 lines 64-67), the controller able to electrically couple to and control the sensors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller circuitry of the modified Korneff device to be a PCB that controls the sensors of the system as taught by Buswell, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of controller circuitry for another, with the benefit of relatively inexpensive. Further, it is noted that using a printed circuit board in any sort of electrical component is routine and conventional across all arts, to the point of being ubiquitous.
Regarding claim 11, Korneff discloses a method of using an automatic Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) humidifier water chamber replenishing and sanitizing system (see Fig. 4 device 400, including humidification component 402, holding water volume 404, being replenished via water filling line controlled by water level control element 418 to deliver fresh sanitized water), comprising: a container (see Fig. 4 some source of water connected to water filling line 416); a water pump (see Col. 10 lines 20-25 where water level control element 418 can be a pump); an auto top-off (ATO) printed circuit board (PCB) (see Fig. 4 control module 420 and Col. 10 lines 4-14 where the control module receives water level data and configures data to operate the device, including operation of water level control element 418); a CPAP humidifier water chamber (see Fig. 4 humidification component 402); and a first sensor connected to the CPAP humidifier water chamber (see Fig. 4 sensors 410a/ 410b) and used for water replenishment detection (as best described in Col. 8 line 63 to Col. 9 line 4 where a drop of water level sensed by the sensor system results in an opening of the water level control element (pump) to refill the chamber), wherein when the first sensor detects that there is no water, it will initiate the water pump (see Col. 8 line 63 to Col. 9 line 4 and Col 10 lines 20-35 where a drop of water level sensed by the sensor system results in an opening of the water level control element (pump) to refill the chamber).
Korneff lacks a detailed description of the water pump being arranged inside the container.
However, Schueller teaches a CPAP humidification system, where a container for holding an auxiliary liquid reservoir has an electric pump inside the container (see Fig. 14D where electric pump 152D acts as a container to hold the auxiliary liquid reservoir 134D, with the pump components being within the shell of the electric pump 152D; see also [0105]-[0106]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water source/ container of Korneff to be an auxiliary liquid reservoir combined with an electric pump as taught by Schueller, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of detached liquid reservoir and pumping system for another, to yield the predictable result of providing a reserve source of water to be pumped into the humidifier. Further, the auxiliary reservoir and pump of Schueller negates the need for gravity, and can thus be placed anywhere in relation to the humidifier (Schueller; see [0107]).
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of an ATO PCB that controls the first and second sensor. It is noted that the controller of Korneff is an electrical device, and would almost certainly be a PCB as is commonplace across all technologies.
However, Buswell teaches a respiratory humidification system where a controller can be configured as circuitry which is able to selectively control a series of sensors (see Col. 12 lines 15-52 where the controller can include integrated circuitry on the intermediate printed circuit board (214; see Col. 26 lines 64-67), the controller able to electrically couple to and control the sensors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller circuitry of the modified Korneff device to be a PCB that controls the sensors of the system as taught by Buswell, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of controller circuitry for another, with the benefit of relatively inexpensive. Further, it is noted that using a printed circuit board in any sort of electrical component is routine and conventional across all arts, to the point of being ubiquitous.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff in view of Schueller in view of Buswell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Novkov (US Pat. 11,247,016).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Korneff device has a water transfer hose connecting the container and the CPAP humidifier water chamber (Korneff; see Fig. 4 water filling line 416, connecting to the auxiliary reservoir/ pump system as taught by Schueller).
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of a solenoid power supply PCB terminal connected to the water transfer hose, wherein when the first sensor senses a low water level within the CPAP water chamber, the first sensor triggers the solenoid power supply PCB terminal to open and allow water to flow through the water transfer hose.
However, Novkov teaches a humidifier device and water control system, where a valve that connects the water pump to the humidification chamber, the valve being a solenoid valve (see Col. 14 lines 15-24) where the control system connects to and control the operation of the solenoid valve (see Col. 22 lines 33-50).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water level control element (valve 418 in Fig. 4 of Korneff) of the modified Korneff device to be a solenoid valve that is connected to the control system as taught by Novkov, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of valve for controlling water flow for another, to yield the predictable result of being able to selectively start and stop the water flow. It is understood that in the modified Korneff device, the solenoid valve is connected to the control module (Korneff; see Col. 10 lines 15-53), is connected to the water filing line (Korneff; 416 in Fig. 4), the solenoid actuated by the printed circuit board controller as taught by Buswell, and responding to the water level sensors from Korneff to control the flow (Korneff; see Col. 10 lines 15-60 and Col. 12 lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Korneff device has wherein once the water has filled the CPAP water chamber to a first sensor water level, the first sensor detects the presence of water, and the ATO PCB stops the water pump from running (Korneff; see Col. 8 line 64 to Col. 9 line 4 where the presence of detected water turns off the modified water level control element and the pump as taught by Schueller).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Korneff device has wherein once the water has filled the CPAP water chamber to the first sensor water level, the first sensor triggers the solenoid power supply PCB terminal to close (Korneff; see Col. 8 line 64 to Col. 9 line 4 where the presence of detected water keeps the modified water level control element (solenoid as taught by Novkov) closed).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Korneff device has wherein closing the solenoid power supply PCB terminal to close seals the water transfer hose (Korneff; see Col. 8 line 64 to Col. 9 line 4 where the presence of detected water keeps the modified water level control element (solenoid as taught by Novkov) closed) and keeps air pressure produced by a CPAP entering the hose or tank and maintains positive therapeutic pressure on the CPAP (Korneff; see Col. 3 lines 50-55 where the system is a CPAP and thus designed to maintain a continuous positive pressure; and see Fig. 4 and Col. 6 lines 12-21 where the respiratory gases flow from inlet 116 to outlet 118, and is understood to continue flowing regardless of the water in the humidification chamber or state of water control element 418).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Korneff device has wherein the second sensor is as an anti-overflow safety sensor (Korneff; see Col. 10 line 54 to Col. 11 line 15, and Col. 12 lines 35-39 where the sensors can detect an excess of water, which is used to shut off the water level control element).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff in view of Schueller in view of Buswell in view of Novkov as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lei et al. (US Pub. 2022/0143357).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Korneff device has wherein the second sensor triggers a stop to the water flow (Korneff; see Col. 10 line 54 to Col. 11 line 15, and Col. 12 lines 35-39 where the sensors can detect an excess of water, which is used to shut off the water level control element). Korneff further has where a second set of sensors can be redundant in case a first set of sensors fails (see Col. 11 lines 25-31).
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of wherein the second sensor triggers the water pump to stop if the first sensor fails.
However, Lei teaches a humidifier and control system, where the failure of a sensor results in a turning off the system (see [0040] where a failure of the sensor to detect light results in the termination of power).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor system of the modified Korneff device to shut off the power is response to a failed sensor as taught by Lei, as it would prevent the system from damaging itself or the user due to improper use.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Korneff device has wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are each capacitive sensors (Korneff; see Col. 9 lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Korneff device has wherein the ATO PCB comprises a firmware-based learned water distribution timing operational scheme configured to stop the water pump after a certain amount of time (Korneff; see Col. 10 line 54 to Col. 11 line 15, and Col. 12 lines 35-39 where the sensors can detect an excess of water, which is used to shut off the water level control element, and as modified by Lei, results in a turning off of the power including the water pump, which would occur after some time interval. See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on this claim regarding the term “if”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff in view of Schueller in view of Buswell in view of Novkov in view of Lei as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Pelkus (US Pub. 2013/0096490).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Korneff device has water stored in the container.
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of a UVC light-emitting diode that disinfects the water stored in the container and inhibits the growth of bacteria and viruses.
However, Pelkus teaches a reservoir for a medical device, where the reservoir has a plurality of UV LEDs that can be in the UVC wavelength, for disinfecting the reservoir (see Fig. 4B; [0013] and [0050]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water reservoir of the modified Korneff device to include UVC LEDs for disinfecting as taught by Pelkus, as it would help prevent the buildup of microbes in the reservoir (Pelkus; see [0013]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff in view of Schueller in view of Buswell as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Day et al. (US Pat. 3,812,774).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Korneff device has the water pump.
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of wherein a maximum running time of the water pump is seven seconds.
However, Day teaches a system where a reservoir is automatically refilled with liquid via a pump, where a time to fill the reservoir via the pump is approximately 5 seconds (see Col. 11 lines 8-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration time of the pump to fill the reservoir of the modified Korneff device to be approximately 5 seconds, such as 7 seconds long, as taught by Day, as it would provide a timing for the pump to help prevent overflow. Further, it would be a matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a time of 7 seconds, when looking at a teaching that mentions approximately 5 seconds. Further, there is a lack of criticality for the specific choice of 7 seconds.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Korneff device has the water pump (see above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the interpretation of the term “if”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Korneff device has wherein the abnormal state is cleared and a normal functioning resumes until the first sensor detects water again (Korneff; see Col. 10 lines 4-34 where under normal operating conditions, the pump system and water level control element are active until further acted upon by the sensor system detecting the water level).
Claim 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneff in view of Schueller in view of Buswell in view of Day as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US Pub. 2016/0066738).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Korneff device has the first sensor and the pump.
The modified Korneff device lacks a detailed description of wherein when there is no timeout and the first sensor detects water again, the pump runs for two seconds and then stops immediately.
However, Shibuya teaches a device for refilling a supply tank with water via a pump, where the pump operates for only 1.5 seconds during the refill phase before shutting off (see [0113]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation time of the pump of the modified Korneff device to be about 1.5 seconds, such as 2 seconds, as taught by Shibuya, as it would provide a timing for the pump for the refill duration. Further, it would be a matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a time of 2 seconds, when looking at a teaching that mentions approximately 1.5 seconds. Further, there is a lack of criticality for the specific choice of 2 seconds.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Korneff device has wherein the automatic CPAP humidifier water chamber replenishing and sanitizing system further comprises a second sensor (Korneff; a second of sensors 410a/ 410b in Fig. 4), wherein the second sensor is used for overflow detection (Korneff; see Col. 10 line 54 to Col. 11 line 15, and Col. 12 lines 35-39 where the sensors can detect an excess of water, which is used to shut off the water level control element) and when water triggers the second sensor, the water pump stops running (Korneff; see Col. 10 line 54 to Col. 11 line 15, and Col. 12 lines 35-39 where the sensors can detect an excess of water, which is used to shut off the water level control element).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Burgess et al. (US Pub. 2018/0250490), Foote (US Pat. 10,272,221), May, Jr. (US Pat. 11,338,105), Kolb (US Pat. 6,129,110), Orec et al. (US Pat. 4,913,140), and Hermez et al. (US Pat. 10,384,030) are cited to show similar humidification systems and/or controls for refilling a reservoir.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571)272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785