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 amendment filed on 07/21/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1 and 7 were amended, and claim 1 was newly added. Thus, claims 1-11 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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 1-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2022/0168536; hereinafter “Hsu”) in view of Murray (US 5,367,604).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a CPAP machine (see Hsu respiratory system 10; [0172] for providing CPAP therapy), comprising:
a housing (see Hsu main device housing 100) including a first opening (see Hsu Fig. 3A pipe leading into flow generator 11; [0085] inlet for drawing air) and a second opening (see Hsu Fig. 3A gases flow outlet 21);
an air pipe disposed in the housing (see Hsu air pipe flowing through housing 100 from flow generator 11, through humidifier 12, to the outlet 21), and having an inlet port continuous with the first opening (see Hsu connection from pipe leading into flow generator 11 through generator 11 and beyond) , and an outlet port (see Hsu end of patient breathing conduit 16 towards the patient);
a blower disposed in the housing (see Hsu [0171] “a flow generator 11 that can be in the form of a motor/impeller arrangement (such as a blower)”), and configured to guide a gas flowed in from the outlet port to the second opening (see Hsu Fig. 3A blower/flow generator 11 continuously pushing gas flow through the air pipe portion to the breathing tube 16 throughout the system; the gas flows from inlet leading into flow generator 11 to the outlet 21 down the tube 16).
However, Hsu is silent as to the remaining claim limitations. However, Murray teaches an air pipe (see Murray air pipe between inlet 4 and outlet 6 in Fig. 1) with an inlet port (see Murray inlet 4) and outlet port (see Murray outlet 6), containing a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the gas when the gas passes through an internal space of the air pipe (see Murray temperature sensor 34 within air flow 37-39 in aur pipe),
wherein the air pipe includes a protrusion protruding outward from a wall of the air pipe (see Murray attached temperature sensor 36 on combination structure 26 and combined casings 8, 10, both of which extend above and below the air pipe between inlet 4 and outlet 6 and protrude outward beyond the confines of the tube shape), and a diverting wall disposed in the protrusion (see Murray liquid compartment 16, formed by material 18 and sealed edges 20, wherein the flow of gas follows arrows 37, 38, and 39 around the compartment 16 as a diverting wall), and
wherein the diverting wall is at least partially located in the protrusion (see Murray top and bottom ends of compartment 16 are within the protruding portions of casings 8,10 and contact the combined structure 26), defines a first communicating port (see Murray arrow 38 on top side of compartment 16) and a second communicating port (see Murray arrow 38 on bottom side of compartment 16) together with a protrusion defining wall defining the protrusion (see Murray longitudinal length of combined structure 26, on the end of which is sensor 34), and is disposed to allow the first communicating port and the second communicating port to be connected to each other in the protrusion (see Murray top and bottom arrows 38 meet at the exit portion towards outlet 6), and the sensor is disposed at the protrusion defining wall (see Murray longitudinal length of combined structure 26, on the end of which is sensor 34). 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 air pipe section within the housing 100 after the flow generator 11 and before the outlet 21, in the space comprising humidifier 12, of Hsu with the substitution of the air pipe section between inlets 4 and 6 comprising the claimed structures above as taught by Murray so as to include a sensor able to sense information regarding the therapy treatment, and as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of continuous air pipe comprising a humidification therapy for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. provide humidified breathing gas therapy.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall protrudes into a space located further inward than a wall of the air pipe defining a main current path (see Murray Fig. 1 compartment 16 is longer in length than the tube from inlet 4 to outlet 6 is wide).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall is connected to the protrusion defining wall at two ends perpendicular to a protruding direction of the protrusion (see Murray flow path arrows 38 around compartment 16 show that the compartment 16 must be attached on two walls of the protrusion since gas cannot go over/under the compartment 16 in order to flow as shown by arrows 38).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall has a plate shape having a flat plate surface (see Murray Fig. 1 shape of compartment 16 shows a substantially flat barrier for the arrow air flow 38 to get around), and the flat plate surface of the diverting wall is perpendicular to an extending direction of a portion of the air pipe at which the protrusion is connected (see Murray tube from inlet 4 to outlet 6 extends horizontally and compartment 16 extends vertically).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall is disposed in the air pipe at a position closer to the inlet port than to the outlet port (see Hsu modified by Murray to include air pipe between inlet 4 and outlet 6 at the position of humidifier 12 in Hsu. That position is closer to the inlet into flow generator 11 than exit port of breathing conduit 16).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall overlaps the inlet port when the inlet port is viewed from a front (see Murray viewing down the tube from inlet 14, the compartment 16 would overlap the view).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall is disposed closer to the outlet port than a center of the inlet port when the inlet port is viewed from the front (see Hsu, modified to include air pipe protrusion of Murray disposed beyond the air flow generator 11. Fig 3A center of housing 100 would be between and below the generator 11 and humidifier 12, wherein the Murray modification is disposed in the region of humidifier 12. Thus, the diverting wall of Murray is close to outlet 21 than the exact center of housing 100).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hsu discloses the diverting wall overlaps the inlet port when the inlet port is viewed from a front (see Murray viewing down the tube from inlet 14, the compartment 16 would overlap the view).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hsu discloses the sensor is disposed inside the protrusion (see Murray temperature sensor 34 is part of and within combination 26, which is part of the defined protrusion including combination structure 26 and casings 8, 10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Payton et al. (US 2022/0401687; hereinafter “Payton”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hsu discloses the protrusion defining wall defining the protrusion at which the sensor (see Murray longitudinal length of combined structure 26, on the end of which is sensor 34), but is silent as to the protrusion defining wall defining the protrusion at which the sensor is disposed is a circuit board on which the sensor is mounted, and wherein the circuit board has a groove around the sensor. However, Payton teaches a circuit board on which the sensor is mounted (see Payton circuit board 60 with thermistor 23 on the board inside conduit 3), and wherein the circuit board has a groove around the sensor (see Payton Fig. 4 groove is in the center of circuit board 60). 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 protrusion defining wall comprising the sensor of modified Hsu with the sensor in the form of a circuit board with a sensor on the board as taught by Payton as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of sensor configuration for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. measure temperature at the known location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Murray as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Garrett et al. (US 2013/0092277; hereinafter “Garrett”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hsu is silent as to the air pipe includes a narrow portion with an opening area smaller than an opening area of the inlet port. However, Garrett teaches the air pipe includes a narrow portion (see Garrett hose length 102 as depicted in Fig. 6) with an opening area smaller than an opening area of the inlet port (see Garrett conical taper where the inlet is formed of a relatively smaller diameter D1 and then widens to a larger diameter D2). 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 portion of air pipe after outlet 21 of modified Hsu with the air pipe including a narrow portion with an opening area of smaller diameter than the remainder of the pipe length as taught by Garrett so as to vary the intensity of the therapeutic gas reaching the user according to the diameter of the tubing reaching them, i.e. changing pressure drop or velocity (see Garrett [0010]).
Modified Hsu discloses and wherein the diverting wall is disposed upstream from the narrow portion (see modified Hsu above, tapering hose 102 disposed after the outlet 121).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 4-5 of the remarks, that “the combination 26 cannot be the protrusion, or by extension the protrusion defining wall”. However, Examiner notes that the rejection of claim 1 defines the protrusion as the combination structure 26 and the casings 8, 10, all of which is extending above and below the air pipe between inlet 4 and outlet 6 (see nonfinal rejection bottom of page 4). The combination 26 is a portion of the protrusion as defined by the rejection using the prior art. Applicant additionally argues that “the microporous wall 18 is alleged to teach the claimed diverting wall. But the microporous wall 18 is contained in the body 1 rather than in the combination 26. The body 1 accommodates the combination 26”. However, as described above, the protrusion is defined to include the entirety of the invention between inlet 4 and outlet 6 of Murray. The wall 18 is within casings 8, 10, which is part of the defined protrusion. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
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 GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights