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 amendments filed on 04/13/2026, as directed by the Non-Final Rejection on 01/12/2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8 and 9 are new. Claims 1-9 are pending in the instant application. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. However, the rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 are maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that Hattori does not disclose the limitation of “an end of the shielding section in the downward direction is located toward the downward direction as seen from a lowest edge of the inlet”. Applicant argues that the lowest edge of the upstream portion 301 is lower than the shielding section (baffle 330) and thus does not meet the limitations. Applicant cites to Fig. 6 and indicates that the shielding section 330 is not lower than a lowest edge of the portion 301 and asserts that accordingly Hattori does not meet the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The limitations are broader than applicant may intend and the claim does not require the particular configuration that applicant asserts. The claim does not explicitly require that the shielding section extend lower than the lowest edge of the inlet, but merely that the shielding section extends in a downward direction when seen from the lowest edge of the inlet. Thus, from the perspective of the inlet, the shielding section need only extend downwards to meet the limitations. In Hattori, the shielding section 330 does indeed extend downwards from the upper lid/housing (see Fig. 3-4 and Paragraph 0021; With 32E extending in a downward direction and thus the shielding section similarly extends downward/in a downward direction from the upper lid/housing) and thus still reads on the limitations as currently filed. It is noted that the perspective being from a ‘lowest edge of the inlet’ is broader than applicant may intend, as being ‘seen’ from this location is recited quite broadly and thus is open to a large degree of interpretation and potential angles of viewing, etc.
It is suggested that applicant further clarifies and defines the relationship between the inlet and shielding section as relevant to the inventive concept in order to define over the prior art. For applicant’s consideration, defining an axis thought the lowest edge of the inlet may help provide more precision in clarifying this point.
Regarding claim 9, applicant presents arguments generally asserting that the device of Hattori does not disclose the limitations of claim 9. Particularly, applicant asserts that Hattori does not disclose “the shielding section overlaps the outlet in a plan view”, pointing to Fig. 5 and suggesting that baffle 330 does not overlap the outlet 320.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. In Fig. 5 of Hattori, from the plan view as shown, the baffle 330 overlaps/envelopes/encompasses the perimeter defining the outlet 320. In other words, from a plan view, the baffle covers the outlet from this bottom perspective/bottom plan view. Thus, it is asserted that Hattori does teach the limitations of claim 9 as currently filed.
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 3-5 and 7-8 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 1 recites a downward direction as “a direction along the vertical axis” but claims 3-5 and 7-8 recite “a direction along the vertical axis”. It is unclear whether these are intended to be different directions or if claims 3-5 and 7-8 refer to the same downward direction but erroneously don’t refer back to the same ‘direction along the vertical axis’ as set forth/to the antecedent basis set forth in claim 1. It is noted that claim 6 further defines an upward direction and thus it appears claims 3-5 and 7-8 should refer to the downward direction, as otherwise the directions should take the form of claim 6 in defining a new direction. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to either refer to “the direction along the vertical axis” as set forth in claim 1, to clarify they are referring to the same downward direction as indicated in claim 1, or otherwise explicitly define a new direction as is done in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori (WO 2021/205913 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori discloses a continuous positive airway pressure apparatus comprising:
a blower configured to pressurize and feed air (see Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0012-0017; The device has a blower unit 100 connected to the base 200, the blower supplying air pressurized by the blower to a humidifier); and
a humidifying tank configured to allow the air, pressurized and fed by the blower, to flow thereinto, the humidifying tank having an inner space capable of storing water (see Figs. 1-5 and Paragraphs 0002-0008, 0012-0019, humidifier 20; The device has a humidifier 20, with a water chamber 30 which has an internal volume to store water and receives the pressurized air from the blower to be humidified),
wherein the humidifying tank includes
a top wall, a side wall, and a bottom wall defining the inner space (see Fig. 2-5, the humidifier has top, side and bottom walls which define the inner space),
a first passage through which the blower communicates with the inner space (Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0037, flow pipe 300; Flow pipe 300 receives air compressed by the blower unit through an opening in upstream portion 301; It is noted that ‘passage’ is understood to refer to a distinct physical structure, as opposed to a mere imaginary pathway for the flow of the fluid/air),
a second passage through which the inner space communicates with a portion being outside of the humidifying tank and being different from the blower (second flow port 320 and conduit 50, Fig. 1-5 and Paragraph 0039; The second flow port communicates with the conduit 50 which is external to the humidifying tank and connects to a tube 90 which delivers the gas to the patient), and
a shielding section intersecting a line segment when an inlet is defined as an opening of the first passage in the humidifying tank, an outlet is defined as an opening of the second passage in the humidifying tank, and the line segment is imagined to connect the inlet and the outlet along a shortest distance (see Fig. 4-5, 7, outlet baffle 330; The outlet baffle 330 intersects a line segment drawn between the inlet of the first passage on the internal side of the humidifier and the outlet 320 along a shortest distance; The baffle surrounds the outlet 320 and lies between the line between the inlet/outlet; also see Fig. 7, 430 outlet baffle extends about and also similarly is disposed between the inlet and outlet along a straight path), and
wherein, when a vertical axis is defined as a specific axis intersecting the bottom wall and a downward direction is defined as a direction being along the vertical axis and being from the top wall toward the bottom wall (see Fig. 1-5; The vertical axis of the humidifier can be simply defined as an axis through/perpendicular to the top and bottom wall),
an end of the shielding section in the downward direction is located toward the downward direction as seen from a lowest edge of the inlet and toward the downward direction as seen from the outlet (see Fig. 4, the baffle 330 extends in a downward direction as seen from the inlet and outlet; The baffle projects downwards with respect to the vertical axis as defined above and thus can be seen to be located in a ‘downward’ direction with respect to the top wall; also see response to arguments above regarding the baffle projecting downward when seen from a lowest edge of the inlet).
Regarding claim 2, Hattori discloses the device of claim 1.
Hattori further discloses wherein the shielding section has a tubular shape, wherein the shielding section has a through-hole through which a first space surrounded by the shielding section communicates with a second space opposite to the first space with the shielding section therebetween (It is first noted that the limitation ‘tubular’ does not seem to imply a circular cross-section as shielding section 70 in Fig. 3 of Applicant’s Specification is clearly non-circular; see Fig. 4 and 7; The shielding section 330 has a tubular shape which extends along a length between two opening portions; The shielding section has an opening flow port 334 which is a through-hole connecting a first interior space about the outlet of 320 and a second space within the humidifier 30 opposite to it across the baffle wall), and wherein a lower end of the through-hole is located toward the downward direction as seen from the inlet and toward the downward direction as seen from the outlet (see Figs. 1-5; A lower end of the through-hole of 334 is located in a downward direction when seen from both inlet and outlet; In other words, the through-hole extends in a downward direction with respect to the vertical axis from the perspective of both the inlet/outlet).
Regarding claim 3, Hattori discloses the device of claim 2.
Hattori further discloses wherein the inlet faces the side wall (see Fig. 1-5; The inlet faces/is oriented towards a ‘back wall’/side wall of the humidifier; It is noted that applicant has not defined any particular side wall and thus can be any side wall between the top/bottom walls and the orientation of the inlet ‘faces’ the back side wall opposite the inlet), and wherein, when seen in a direction along the vertical axis, the through-hole faces in a direction different from a direction in which the inlet faces (see Fig. 4, the inlet of flow pipe 300 faces in a different direction than the through-hole of 334, which faces substantially orthogonal to that through the inlet).
Regarding claim 4, Hattori discloses the device of claim 2.
Hattori further discloses wherein an inner surface of the shielding section includes a facing surface facing the through-hole in a direction in which the through-hole faces, and wherein, when seen in a direction along the vertical axis, the facing surface is inclined relative to an opening surface of the through-hole (see Fig. 5, in the direction in which the through-hole faces, i.e, orthogonal to the line defined by 334, there is a linear sloping portion of the shielding section which is inclined relative to the opening surface of the through-hole; In other words, the inner wall of the shielding section which is opposite/facing towards the through hole is sloped and inclined relative to the opening surface of 334).
Regarding claim 5, Hattori discloses the device of claim 2.
Hattori further discloses wherein, when seen in a direction along the vertical axis, an inner surface of the shielding section does not have portions facing each other parallelly (see Fig. 5 in particular; The shielding section of 330 does not have any parallel portions which face each other; The baffle is substantially circular with one straight section; While instantaneous tangents to the circle could be ‘parallel’ to one another, there are not ‘portions’ of the shielding section which are parallel and face one another; If such were the case, the curved portions of the shielding portions in Fig. 3 or 5 of Applicant’s specification would similarly be parallel).
Regarding claim 6, Hattori discloses the device of claim 1.
Hattori further discloses wherein, when an upward direction is defined as a direction being along the vertical axis and being toward the second passage as seen from the bottom wall, the second passage extends so as to be located in the upward direction with increasing distance from the outlet toward a downstream side (see Figs. 3-4, the second flow port 320 extends in an upward direction into the conduit 50 which is the outlet for gas into the tubing 90; Thus, the second passage extends in the upward direction towards the downstream side at the conduit 50).
Regarding claim 7, Hattori discloses the device of claim 3.
Hattori further discloses wherein an inner surface of the shielding section includes a facing surface facing the through-hole in a direction in which the through-hole faces, and wherein, when seen in a direction along the vertical axis, the facing surface is inclined relative to an opening surface of the through-hole (see Fig. 5, in the direction in which the through-hole faces, i.e, orthogonal to the line defined by 334, there is a linear sloping portion of the shielding section which is inclined relative to the opening surface of the through-hole; In other words, the inner wall of the shielding section which is opposite/facing towards the through hole is sloped and inclined relative to the opening surface of 334).
Regarding claim 9, Hattori discloses A continuous positive airway pressure apparatus comprising:
a blower configured to pressurize and feed air (see Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0012-0017; The device has a blower unit 100 connected to the base 200, the blower supplying air pressurized by the blower to a humidifier); and
a humidifying tank configured to allow the air, pressurized and fed by the blower, to flow thereinto, the humidifying tank having an inner space capable of storing water (see Figs. 1-5 and Paragraphs 0002-0008, 0012-0019, humidifier 20; The device has a humidifier 20, with a water chamber 30 which has an internal volume to store water and receives the pressurized air from the blower to be humidified),
wherein the humidifying tank includes
a top wall, a side wall, and a bottom wall defining the inner space (see Fig. 2-5, the humidifier has top, side and bottom walls which define the inner space),
a first passage through which the blower communicates with the inner space (Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0037, flow pipe 300; Flow pipe 300 receives air compressed by the blower unit through an opening in upstream portion 301; It is noted that ‘passage’ is understood to refer to a distinct physical structure, as opposed to a mere imaginary pathway for the flow of the fluid/air),
a second passage through which the inner space communicates with a portion being outside of the humidifying tank and being different from the blower (second flow port 320 and conduit 50, Fig. 1-5 and Paragraph 0039; The second flow port communicates with the conduit 50 which is external to the humidifying tank and connects to a tube 90 which delivers the gas to the patient), and
a shielding section intersecting a line segment when an inlet is defined as an opening of the first passage in the humidifying tank, an outlet is defined as an opening of the second passage in the humidifying tank, and the line segment is imagined to connect the inlet and the outlet along a shortest distance (see Fig. 4-5, 7, outlet baffle 330; The outlet baffle 330 intersects a line segment drawn between the inlet of the first passage on the internal side of the humidifier and the outlet 320 along a shortest distance; The baffle surrounds the outlet 320 and lies between the line between the inlet/outlet; also see Fig. 7, 430 outlet baffle extends about and also similarly is disposed between the inlet and outlet along a straight path), and
wherein, when a vertical axis is defined as a specific axis intersecting the bottom wall and a downward direction is defined as a direction being along the vertical axis and being from the top wall toward the bottom wall (see Fig. 1-5; The vertical axis of the humidifier can be simply defined as an axis through/perpendicular to the top and bottom wall),
an end of the shielding section in the downward direction is located toward the downward direction as seen from the inlet and toward the downward direction as seen from the outlet (see Fig. 4, the baffle 330 extends in a downward direction as seen from the inlet and outlet; The baffle projects downwards with respect to the vertical axis as defined above and thus can be seen to be located in a ‘downward’ direction with respect to the top wall; also see response to arguments above regarding the baffle projecting downward when seen from a lowest edge of the inlet),
wherein the shielding section overlaps the outlet in a plan view (Fig. 5, from the plan perspective shown, the shielding section 330 overlaps/envelopes the perimeter defined by the outlet of 320 and thus meets the limitations as filed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (WO 2021205913 A1) in view of Pieri (U.S 2010/0170510 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hattori discloses the device of claim 1.
Hattori further wherein an inner surface of the shielding section has a through-hole and an opposing surface that faces the through-hole in a direction in which the through-hole opens (see Fig. 4 and 7; The shielding section has an opening flow port 334 which is a through-hole connecting the interior space about the outlet of 320 and the space within the humidifier 30 opposite to it across the baffle wall; Opposite the through-hole 334 is an interior wall of 331 which deflects the air towards the outlet 320; The interior of the baffle includes straight and curved sections and thus the direction in which the through-hole opens will have an opposing surface on the interior of the baffle 330).
Hattori is silent regarding wherein when viewed in a direction along the vertical axis, the opposing surface is inclined with respect to an opening surface of the through-hole.
However, Pieri teaches wherein a lower surface of a baffle about an aperture to a water reservoir may be inclined relative to the vertical axis and with respect to an opening surface of the through-hole of the baffle (see Paragraph 0019 and Figs. 2-7; The baffle 1 is disposed about an outlet/aperture 4, the baffle having a gentle curving incline compared to the opening/through-hole of the baffle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hattori to have included an inclined surface of the baffle opposite the opening/through-hole of the baffle, such as that taught by Pieri, in order to guide the air into/out of the aperture/water reservoir with minimum resistance (Paragraph 0019).
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 THOMAS WILLIAM GREIG whose telephone number is (571)272-5378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS W GREIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights