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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
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 1, 3, 9, 11, and dependents therein 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.
The meaning of the limitation “wherein the three or more dampers each comprise one or more projections” is unclear in the overall context of claim 1 and disclosure as a whole. The claim earlier recites that the blower comprises “three or more projections”, and it is unclear if the projections on the damper correspond to the earlier claimed three or more projections, or constitute a different structural element. The specification does not detail any other type of “projection”. Claim 3 furthermore recites the dampers “having one of the one or more protrusions”, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This appears to be the properly worded phrase for the limitation in claim 1, as supported by paragraph [0079] of the instant specification. Accordingly, replacing the limitation to read “wherein the three or more dampers each comprise one or more protrusions” would overcome 112(b) to claims 1 and 3.
Claim 9 recites at least some of the virtual line segments drawn between the first and second support members “do not intersect any of the fan and the delivery tube”. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In the instant case, all of the virtual line segments drawn between the first and second supports intersect either the delivery tube 70 or the fan, as illustrated by Fig. 7, lines VL1 and VLm. Applicant may overcome the rejection by reciting that the virtual line segments “do not intersect any of the fan and a discharge tube” (element 90 in Fig. 7).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "on the other straight line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should be amended to recite “on the another straight line” and depend from claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 5 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Maeda (WO 2021205877; hereafter referring to US 20230028015 for translation of the WO).
1. Maeda discloses a continuous positive airway pressure device [0002], comprising: a main body case (20, [0017]); a blower housed inside the main body case (40, [0021]); and three or more dampers (111, 112, 113, see Fig. 3, [0035,37,39]), wherein the blower comprises a fan unit (60, [0021]) housing a fan configured to send air by being rotated (50, [0026]), a delivery tube through which the air sent from the fan passes (70, [0021]), and three or more projections that project radially away from the fan unit and that are respectively fixed to the three or more dampers (66, 67, 68 fixed into 111, 112, and 113, respectively, see [0034, 36, 38], Fig. 7; see [0035], Fig. 3 for description of fixing into the damper), and wherein the three or more dampers each comprise one or more projections (in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, examiner considers 111a as the damper main body and 111b as the projection from the damper main body, as described in [0035]; the coupling portions as described in [0035] may additionally be considered as the projection/protrusion; see also [0037, 39]) that contact a housing wall surface of the main body case (the dampers are fitted into fan supports 121, 122, 123, thereby contacting the wall surface of the fan supports, see [0040, 0043], Figs. 3 and 4; examiner interprets the main body case to include fan supports 121, 122, and 123 because they are attached thereto, see [0040]).
2. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more projections are rounded (111b is rounded in an elliptical shape).
5. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 1, wherein the dampers are rubber [0035].
6. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 1, further comprising: three or more support members interposed between the main body case and the blower, respectively fixed to the three or more dampers, and configured to support the blower inside the main body case (121, 122, 123, [0040, 0043, 0006], Figs. 3 and 4) , wherein in a view from a direction of a rotation axis of the fan: first and second support members of the support members are disposed to pinch the blower on a side of a connection point between the fan unit and the delivery tube relative to the rotation axis ([0046], Fig. 3), and a third support member different from the first and second support members of the support members is disposed on a side opposite to the connection point relative to the rotation axis ([0049], Fig. 3).
7. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein in a view from the rotation axis direction of the fan, the first support member and the second support member are disposed to pinch the fan unit, and the support members are not disposed between the delivery tube and the main body case (see Fig. 3).
8. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein in a view from the rotation axis direction of the fan, of virtual line segments allowed to be drawn between the first support member and the second support member, a virtual line segment farthest from the rotation axis does not intersect the fan (see Fig. 3, VLf).
9. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein in a view from the rotation axis direction of the fan, of the virtual line segments allowed to be drawn between the first support member and the second support member, at least some of the virtual line segments do not intersect any of the fan and the delivery tube (see Fig. 3, lines that can be drawn between VLf and CP; examiner considers these lines to not intersect the discharge tube, as explained in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above).
10. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein in a view from the rotation axis direction of the fan, in a case that the blower is divided into a first region on the connection point side and a second region on a side opposite to the connection point by a boundary being a straight line passing through the rotation axis and orthogonal to another straight line passing through the rotation axis and the connection point (see lines VB and VA, respectively), the first support member and the second support member support the blower in the first region, the third support member supports the blower in the second region, and a distance between the third support member and the first support member and a distance between the third support member and the second support member are both longer than a distance between the first support member and the second support member (see Fig. 3, [0050]).
11. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein the third support member is disposed on the other straight line passing through the connection point and the rotation axis (see Fig. 3).
12. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 6, wherein all of the support members are disposed at outer side portions of the fan unit in a view from the rotation axis direction of the fan (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3 -4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in in view of Hoffman (US 20070247009) view of Kuo (US 20110277957).
3. Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 1, wherein each of the three or more dampers comprises: an inner portion (111a; damper 111 is hereafter described for illustrative purposes, though the device of Maeda includes dampers 112 and 113 as the respective other three dampers) having a recess in which the respective projection is fixed [0035]; and an outer portion (111b) having an elliptical ring shape surrounding the inner portion from the outside [0035], and coupled to the inner portion at a plurality of positions in a circumferential direction [0035].
However, Maeda does not explicitly disclose that the three or more dampers contact a housing wall surface of the main body case, such that a laterally outward-most surface of the inner portion 111a contacts a housing wall surface. Nonetheless, Hoffman discloses a blower (12) in which the three or more dampers (110) contact a housing wall surface of the main body case (122), such that a laterally outward-most surface of the damper contacts a housing wall surface (terminus end 118 mates with same sized slot wall 122, see [0065 – 0068], Figs. 3, 8, and 10). Therefore, according to the teachings of Hoffman, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a laterally outward-most surface of damper 111a/111b of Maeda to contact a wall surface for the benefit of supporting the blower assembly in the lateral/radial direction while attenuating the lateral/radial vibrations, see [0065].
However, Maeda does not disclose that the three or more dampers each comprise one or more protrusions that contact a housing wall surface of the main body case, the inner portion having one of the one or more protrusions. Nonetheless, in the analogous art of elastic dampers for eliminating vibration and therefore noise generated by a fan [0026], Kuo discloses a main body case (3); a blower housed inside the main body case (2); and three or more elastic dampers (1, see Fig. 3, [0024]), and wherein the three or more dampers each comprise one or more projections (bumps 12) that contact a housing wall surface of the main body case (see [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the laterally outward surface on 111a and 111b of Maeda to include the bumps 12 of Kuo for the benefit of reducing vibrations/noise, see [0026], [0027] of Kuo.
Upon providing the modification as described, the inner portion of 111a of Kuo would have one of the one or more protrusions that contact a housing wall surface of the main body case.
4. The modified Maeda discloses the continuous positive airway pressure device according to claim 3, but does not disclose the outer portion comprises four of the one or more protrusions, equally spaced circumferentially around an outside of the outer portion.
Kuo discloses multiple portions with four or more protrusions 12, see Fig. 2, with generally equal spacing, see respective left and right sides of Fig. 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to
modify the outer portion 111b of Maeda according to the equal spaced four or more protrusions of Kuo for the benefit of ensuring consistent dampening throughout the surface area.
Upon providing the modification as described, the circumferential outer portion 111b would contain four or more protrusions equally spaced circumferentially around an outside of the outer portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H PHILIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-5180. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785