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. Claims 1-10, filed 9/26/23, are currently pending. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the blower must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “CPAP,” which should be written out, at least in the first instance . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is 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 recites “a second frame,” however a first frame has not been claimed and therefore it is unclear if a first frame was intended to be claimed. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (WO 2020/217843) in view of McMahon et al. (2023/0144677) . Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1-2 , 4a and 6 -8 Maeda discloses a CPAP device 1 , comprising: a main unit 10 including a first electric circuit (first control unit 21 that includes a CPU) including a blower 22 and a first connection terminal 15 connected to the first electric circuit (Fig. 7) ; and a base unit 40 connectable to the main unit (Fig. 8) , including a blower tube 45 , a second electric circuit (second control unit 53 that includes a CPU) , and a second connection terminal 46 connected to the second electric circuit (Fig. 6) , wherein the main unit 10 includes a first electrical connection portion (portion of wall 113 where 15 is disposed) including an exposed portion (exposed portion of 15 visible in fig. 1) of the first connection terminal 15 and a first peripheral portion (portion of wall 113 surrounding 15 and the first electrical connection portion) surrounding the first electrical connection portion, the base unit 40 includes a second electrical connection portion (portion of wall where 46 is disposed) including an exposed portion (exposed portion of 46 visible in fig. 2) of the second connection terminal 46 and a second peripheral portion (portion of wall surrounding 46 and the second electrical connection portion) surrounding the second electrical connection portion, but is silent regarding a first distance with which the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion face each other has a portion shorter than a second distance with which a proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion around the first connection terminal and a proximal portion of the second electrical connection portion around the second connection terminal face each other. However, in fig. 6D McMahon teaches a first distance (between first peripheral portion and second peripheral portion in annotated Fig. 6C below ) with which a first peripheral portion ( see annotated Fig. 6C below ) and a second peripheral portion ( see annotated Fig. 6C below ) face each other has a portion shorter (see fig. 6D) than a second distance (between the proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion around the first connection terminal and a proximal portion of the second electrical connection portion around the second connection termina in annotated Fig. 6C below) with which a proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion around the first connection terminal and a proximal portion of the second electrical connection portion around the second connection terminal face each other (see fig. 6D) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maeda’s first and second connection terminals and first and second electrical connection portions and peripheral portions as well as tubing connections of 441 and 144 of Maeda in fig. 4a-4b with first and second connection terminals and first and second electrical connection portions and peripheral portions and longer tubing connection portions to still allow for seals , as taught by McMahon, for the purpose of providing alternate terminal connection structures having the predictable results of providing an electrical connection between the main unit and the base unit. Regarding claim 2, the modified Maeda discloses that over an entire periphery (due to the annular connection of McMahon) of a portion where the proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion around the first connection terminal and the proximal portion of the second electrical connection portion around the second connection terminal face each other (Fig. 6D McMahon) , the first distance is shorter than the second distance (Fig. 6D McMahon, also see annotated Fig. 6C above) . Regarding claim 3, the modified Maeda discloses that the main unit has a first surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the first electrical connection portion is disposed on a bottom surface of a recess (recess formed by proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion and the first peripheral portion , the bottom surface of the recess is the proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion ) recessed from the first surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , the base unit has a second surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the second electrical connection portion is disposed on a top surface (as opposed to a bottom surface at the bottom of the conduit closer to where 358 is pointing in fig. 6C) of a protrusion (tubing of 358, see fig. 6A and 6C) protruding from the second surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the first peripheral portion is a side surface of the recess (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the second peripheral portion is a side surface of the protrusion (see annotated fig. 6C above). Regarding claim 4, the modified Maeda discloses that the base unit has a first frame higher than the protrusion outside the second peripheral portion on the second surface (see annotated fig. 6C where the first frame is on the second surface and higher than the protrusion) . Regarding claim 5, the modified Maeda discloses that the second electrical connection portion includes a second frame (see annotated fig. 6C above) surrounding the second connection terminal (annularly) when viewed from a direction orthogonal to the second surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) . Regarding claim 6, the modified Maeda discloses that the first distance is 0.15 mm (when the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion are being put into place and right before they come into contact) . Regarding claim 7, the modified Maeda discloses that the base unit includes a storage tank (511 Maeda) configured to store water. Regarding claim 8, the modified Maeda discloses that the main unit has a first surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the first electrical connection portion is disposed on a bottom surface of a recess (recess formed by proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion and the first peripheral portion, the bottom surface of the recess is the proximal portion of the first electrical connection portion) recessed from the first surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , the base unit has a second surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the second electrical connection portion is disposed on a top surface (as opposed to a bottom surface at the bottom of the conduit closer to where 358 is pointing in fig. 6C) of a protrusion (tubing of 358, see fig. 6A and 6C) protruding from the second surface (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the first peripheral portion is a side surface of the recess (see annotated fig. 6C above) , and the second peripheral portion is a side surface of the protrusion (see annotated fig. 6C above). Regarding claim 9, the modified Maeda discloses that the first distance is 0.15 mm (when the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion are being put into place and right before they come into contact) . Regarding claim 10, the modified Maeda discloses that the base unit includes a storage tank (511 Maeda) configured to store water. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (2023/0381444) directed towards a CPAP apparatus including electrical connections, Austin et al. (2023/0060994) directed towards a CPAP apparatus including electrical connections and Formica et al. (2020/0330720) directed towards a CPAP apparatus including electrical connections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1481 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-5:00 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5139 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RACHEL T SIPPEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785