DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 27, 2024. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, claims 1-14 have been canceled, and new claims 15-35 have been added. Thus, claims 15-35 are presently pending in the application.
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 there is a typo in line 4, where “provide” should read --provides--. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 15-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,613.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 15 is anticipated by Claim 1 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 16 is anticipated by Claim 2 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 17 is anticipated by Claim 3 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 18 is anticipated by Claim 4 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 19 is anticipated by Claim 5 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 20 is anticipated by Claim 6 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 21 is anticipated by Claim 9 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 22 is anticipated by Claim 10 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 23 is anticipated by Claim 11 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 24 is anticipated by Claim 12 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 25 is anticipated by Claim 13 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 26 is anticipated by Claim 14 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 27 is anticipated by Claim 15 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 28 is anticipated by Claim 16 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 29 is anticipated by Claim 17 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 30 is anticipated by Claim 18 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 31 is anticipated by Claim 7 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 32 is anticipated by Claim 8 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 33 is anticipated by Claim 19 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 34 is anticipated by Claim 20 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 35 is anticipated by Claim 21 of the ‘623 patent.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715).
As to claim 15, Kenyon discloses a breathing assistance apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a pressurized gases source (Fig. 1, blower assembly 10) comprising: a housing (the housing of blower assembly 10 shown in Fig. 1), the housing of the pressurized gases source 10 comprising a gases inlet (Fig. 1, inlet 18) and a gases outlet (Fig. 1, outlet 20), the gases inlet of the housing of the pressurised gases source being in fluid communication with the gases outlet of the housing of the pressurised gases source 10, the gases outlet of the housing of the pressurised gases source 10 being configured to emit pressurized gases to an outlet 34 of the breathing assistance apparatus (Fig. 5, outlet 20 emits pressurized gas to outlet tube 34), and a motor (Fig. 24, motor “M”, paragraph [0106]) comprising a rotor 282, the rotor 282 comprising an opening (Fig. 24, rotor magnet 282 has an opening for the shaft 284), a rotatable shaft 284 extending through the opening (see Fig. 24, showing shaft 284 extending through the opening of the rotor magnet 282, paragraph [0106]), and a lightweight impeller 244, 62 (Figs. 8-10, and 24, paragraph [0102]; paragraph [0077] discloses reducing the inertia of the impeller, which implies the impeller is “lightweight.” It is also noted that the applicant has not provided any definition or benchmark for “lightweight,” whereby a broad definition of “lightweight” is being applied) being disposed on the rotatable shaft (Fig. 24, shaft 284).
Kenyon does not disclose that the rotor’s opening comprises a ledge and that the motor comprises a plastic insert contacting the rotatable shaft and the ledge.
However, Kodani teaches a brushless motor (Fig. 1, col. 1, ln. 15-17) comprising a rotatable shaft 1 (Fig. 2) that extends through an opening in a rotor 3 (Fig. 2, rotor magnet 3 is considered the rotor), wherein the opening has a ledge 3a, 3b (see Fig. 3A embodiment with chamfered sections 3a forming a ledge, col. 4, ln. 1-12) and a plastic insert 5 which contacts the rotatable shaft 1 and the ledge 3a (see Fig. 2, Fig. 5B, col. 3, ln. 57-67, the molding resin 5 (PPS) being considered the plastic insert). Kodani additionally teaches that this plastic insert (PPS) has sufficient heat and chemical resistance (col. 3, ln. 65-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the motor of Kenyon to include the ledge on the rotor opening and a plastic insert between the rotatable shaft and the ledge as taught by Kodani in order to provide a rotor which is strongly bonded to the shaft and has sufficient chemical and heat resistance.
As to claim 16, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the lightweight impeller 62 is shroudless or otherwise has reduced material (Kenyon, [0077], discloses having differently sized shrouds or only one shroud (i.e. a "reduced material") to reduce the inertia of the impeller).
As to claim 21, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the plastic insert (molded resin 5 of Kodani) comprises a first axial dimension closer to the rotatable shaft 1 and a second axial dimension closer to the rotor 3, the second axial dimension being different than the first axial dimension (see annotated Fig. 5B of Kodani below).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 22, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the plastic insert (molded resin 5 of Kodani) comprises a first portion that engages the rotatable shaft 1, the first portion defining the first axial dimension, the plastic insert 5 also comprising a second portion that engages the rotor, the second portion defining at least the second axial dimension (in this case, the second axial dimension is considered the height of the opening that receives rotor 3), the second axial dimension substantially corresponding to a rotor axial dimension of the rotor (the height of the rotor 3), and the first axial dimension being greater than the second axial dimension (see annotated Fig. 5B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein an axial dimension of the plastic insert (molded resin 5 of Kodani) decreases radially outward from the rotatable shaft 1 (see annotated Fig. 5B of Kodani below).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the plastic insert (molded resin 5 of Kodani) comprises a first radial dimension closer to the rotatable shaft 1 and a second radial dimension closer to a radially outward end of the rotor 3, the second radial dimension being different than the first radial dimension (see annotated Fig. 5B of Kodani below).
PNG
media_image4.png
352
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the ledge (3a of Kodani, Fig. 3A) spans a perimeter of the opening (chamfered edge 3a spans the perimeter of the top and bottom of the opening through rotor magnet 3, see Fig. 3A of Kodani, col. 4, ln. 3-4).
As to claim 26, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the plastic insert 5 (Fig. 2, Fig. 5B of Kodani) engages the ledge 3a to prevent relative motion between the rotor 3 and the rotatable shaft 1 (see Figs. 2, 5B of Kodani, col. 3, ln. 61-65).
Claims 17, 18, 20, and 31-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Adahan (US 5,484,270).
As to claim 17, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the motor M further comprises a stator (Kenyon, Fig. 24, motor “M” has a stator in the form of windings 280) and at least one bearing structure 286,288 to support the rotatable shaft 284 within the stator (Fig. 24, bearings 286 and 288 support the shaft 284 within the windings/stator 280), the rotatable shaft 284 being located within the stator 280 (see Fig. 24), but does not expressly disclose that the at least one bearing structure comprises one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts.
However, Adahan teaches a pump P used within a respiratory device (Figs. 1-3) comprising a rotating shaft (nut 18) that is supported by a bearing (Fig. 2, bearing 19), wherein the bearing 19 is mounted in flexible and resilient bearing mounts 20 to reduce the noise of the device when the bearings and shaft rotate (Fig. 2, rubber noise isolator 20 mounts the bearings; see col. 3, In. 48-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the apparatus of modified Kenyon to have a rubber noise isolator that mounts the bearings, as taught by Adahan, in order to reduce the amount of noise made by the rotating shaft and bearings as well as provide vibration dampening to the rest of the device.
As to claim 18, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts 20 provide at least one of compliance, preload, and damping of the rotatable shaft (see Adahan, Fig. 2, rubber noise isolator 20 would mount the bearings 286 of Kenyon in the modified device and provide damping of vibrations that cause noise).
As to claim 20, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the motor M further comprises a flexible and/or resilient motor mount coupling the stator and the housing to provide at least one of compliance and/or damping for the motor (see Kenyon, Fig. 24, flexible sleeve 272 is a flexible motor mount that couples the stator and the housing and provides damping for the motor; see [0105]), and a partition (first volute component 246) defining a first interior region (the region above the volute component 246 that houses the impellor 244, see Figs. 23-24) and a second interior region (the region below the component 246 that includes transitional space 306, see Fig. 23) within the housing (see Kenyon, Figs. 23-24), the first interior region 247 and the second interior region 306 being fluidly connected by a crescent shaped opening 294 formed in or by the partition (see Kenyon, Figs. 23-30, flow channel 294 extends approximately 180 degrees from inlet 296 to outlet 298 which forms a crescent shaped, paragraph [0107]).
As to claim 31, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the at least one bearing structure (bearings 286, 288 of Kenyon) is supported by the one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts (noise isolator 20 of Adahan) about an axis of the rotatable shaft (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Adahan), wherein the one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts 20 are configured to provide preload on the at least one bearing structure (noise isolator 20 is made of rubber, whereby such a material will deflect some when placed into contact with the stator and shaft of the motor. This deflection will result in "preload" to the bearings 286 and 288 of Kenyon in the modified device, see Adahan, Figs. 1-2, col. 3, ln. 49-51).
As to claim 32, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts (noise isolator 20 of Adahan) comprise a curved annular body engaging the stator (Adahan teaches noise isolator 20 surrounding the rotary bearing 19 engaging with the curved wall of the housing 16, thus, the modified Kenyon apparatus will have a curved annular body between the curved outer wall of each bearing 286, 288 and the curved inner wall of the volute components 246, 250 that form part of the stator) to coerce the curved annular body 20 into an engaged configuration that provides preload to the at least one bearing structure (noise isolator 20 is made of rubber, whereby such a material will deflect some when placed into contact with the stator and shaft of the motor. This deflection will result in "preload" to the bearings 286 and 288 of Kenyon in the modified device, see Adahan, Figs. 1-2, col. 3, ln. 49-51).
As to claim 33, Kenyon discloses a breathing assistance apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a motor (Fig. 24, motor “M”, paragraph [0106]) comprising a rotor 282, the rotor 282 comprising an opening (Fig. 24, rotor magnet 282 has an opening for the shaft 284), a rotatable shaft 284 located within a stator 280 (Kenyon, Fig. 24, windings 280 form the stator) arranged to extend through the opening (see Fig. 24, showing shaft 284 extending through the opening of the rotor magnet 282), at least one bearing structure supporting the rotatable shaft 284 within the stator 280 (Fig. 24, shaft 284 is located within the windings/stator 280, the shaft 284 is supported by bearings 286, 288, paragraph [0106]), and a lightweight impeller (Figs. 8-10, impeller 62; [0077] discloses reducing the inertia of the impeller, which implies the impeller is “lightweight.” It is also noted that the applicant has not provided any definition or benchmark for “lightweight,” whereby a broad definition of “lightweight” is being applied) being disposed on the rotatable shaft (Fig. 24, shaft 284).
Kenyon does not disclose that the rotor’s opening comprises a ledge, that the motor comprises a plastic insert contacting the rotatable shaft and the ledge, the plastic insert coupling the rotatable shaft to the rotor, the plastic insert comprising a continuous material between the rotatable shaft and the ledge.
However, Kodani teaches a brushless motor (Fig. 1, col. 1, ln. 15-17) comprising a rotatable shaft 1 (Fig. 2) that extends through an opening in a rotor 3 (Fig. 2, rotor magnet 3 is considered the rotor), wherein the opening has a ledge 3a, 3b (see Fig. 3A embodiment with chamfered sections 3a forming a ledge, col. 4, ln. 1-12) and a plastic insert (molding resin 5) which contacts the rotatable shaft 1 and the ledge 3a (see Fig. 2, Fig. 5B, col. 3, ln. 57-67) and comprises a continuous material 5 between the rotatable shaft and the ledge (molding resin 5 comprises one material, PPS, col. 3, ln. 65-67). Kodani additionally teaches that this plastic insert (PPS) has sufficient heat and chemical resistance (col. 3, ln. 65-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the motor of Kenyon to include the ledge on the rotor opening and a plastic insert between the rotatable shaft and the ledge as taught by Kodani in order to provide a rotor which is strongly bonded to the shaft and has sufficient chemical and heat resistance.
Modified Kenyon does not expressly disclose that the at least one bearing structure comprises one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts.
However, Adahan teaches a pump P used within a respiratory device (Figs. 1-3) comprising a rotating shaft (nut 18) that is supported by a bearing (Fig. 2, bearing 19), wherein the bearing 19 is mounted in flexible and resilient bearing mounts 20 to reduce the noise of the device when the bearings and shaft rotate (Fig. 2, rubber noise isolator 20 mounts the bearings; see col. 3, In. 48-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the apparatus of modified Kenyon to have a rubber noise isolator that mounts the bearings, as taught by Adahan, in order to reduce the amount of noise made by the rotating shaft and bearings as well as provide vibration dampening to the rest of the device.
As to claim 34, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the one or more flexible and/or resilient bearing mounts 20 provide at least one of compliance preload and damping of the rotatable shaft (see Adahan, Fig. 2, rubber noise isolator 20 would mount the bearings 286 of Kenyon in the modified device and provide damping of vibrations that cause noise).
Claims 19 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715) Adahan (US 5,484,270), as applied to claims 17 and 33 above, and further in view of Ihle et al. (US 2007/0284952).
As to claim 19, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the rotatable shaft 1 is coupled to the rotor 3 (see Fig. 2 of Kodani), but does not expressly disclose that the rotatable shaft comprises an injection molded rotatable shaft. However, Ihle teaches a rotatable shaft 49 of a permanent magnet rotor (Fig. 5) that is formed of plastic by injection molding (paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotatable shaft of modified Kenyon to be formed of plastic by injection molding, as taught by Ihle, in order to provide a cost-effective means of manufacturing a shaft that has the particular geometry needed.
As to claim 35, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the rotatable shaft 1 is coupled to the rotor 3 (see Fig. 2 of Kodani), but does not expressly disclose that the rotatable shaft comprises an injection molded rotatable shaft. However, Ihle teaches a rotatable shaft 49 of a permanent magnet rotor (Fig. 5) that is formed of plastic by injection molding (paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotatable shaft of modified Kenyon to be formed of plastic by injection molding, as taught by Ihle, in order to provide a cost-effective means of manufacturing a shaft that has the particular geometry needed.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Van de Griend (US 4,623,812).
As to claim 27, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, but does not expressly wherein the ledge includes a stepped ledge. However, Van de Griend teaches a rotor 25 having an opening 29 including a ledge 31, wherein the ledge is a stepped ledge (Van de Griend, Fig. 2, recess 33 forms the shape of a “step,” thereby making the ledge a “stepped ledge”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the ledge of modified Kenyon to have a stepped shape, as taught by Van de Griend, as such a modification is the simple substitution of one known insert-rotor coupling mechanism (i.e. the stepped ledge of Van de Griend) for another known insert-rotor coupling mechanism (i.e. the chamfered ledge of Kodani) to obtain the predictable result of coupling an insert to the opening of a rotor inside a motor.
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mebasser et al (US 2014/0069432).
As to claim 28, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, but does not expressly wherein the rotatable shaft is metal. However, Mebasser teaches a PAP system blower comprising and impeller and a rotatable shaft, wherein the rotatable shaft is made of either metal or plastic (Fig. 67, rotor/shaft 170; [0145] discloses the rotor 170 (which includes the shaft) to be made out of metal or plastic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the rotatable shaft of modified Kenyon to be made of metal as taught by Mebasser, as such a modification is the simple substitution of one known material for a rotatable shaft in a blower (i.e. the metal shaft of Mebasser) for another known material for a rotatable shaft in a blower (i.e. the shaft of Kenyon made of unknown material) to obtain the predictable result of providing a rotor for spinning an impeller. Furthermore, use of a metal shaft would have the advantage of being more durable and longer lasting.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenyon (2010/0132711) in view of Kodani et al. (US 9,048,715), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jeung (US 8,080,907).
As to claim 29, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, but does not expressly wherein the rotatable shaft includes a knurled section, the knurled section engaging with the plastic insert. However, Jeung teaches a rotatable shaft 12 having a knurled section 12a engaging with a plastic insert 14 (see Fig. 3, col. 3, In. 39-42, which discloses a concavo-convex portion 12a on shaft 12 that increases bonding forces). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of modified Kenyon so that the shaft has a knurled section engaging with the plastic insert, as taught by Jeung, in order to increase the bonding strength of the shaft to the insert.
As to claim 30, modified Kenyon discloses the breathing assistance apparatus according to claim 15, but does not expressly disclose wherein the opening comprises at least one indent projecting outwardly from a center of the opening into the rotor. However, Jeung teaches an opening of a rotor having indents 20a, 20b projecting outwardly from the center of the opening into the rotor (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, col. 3, ln. 58 – col. 4, ln. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Kenyon so that the rotor opening includes the indents, as taught by Jeung, in order to increase the bonding force between the injection-molded plastic insert and the rotor magnet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
lonel (US 2007/0132335) discloses an insert between a rotor and a shaft of a motor.
Barlow et al. (US 2012/0152255) discloses a breathing assistance apparatus (PAP system) comprising a small pressurized gases source (blower 1210, Fig. 86) that includes a motor having a rotatable shaft and/or rotor (not shown, but described paragraph [0293]), a stator component 1230 comprising bearing mounts (component parts 1231(1) and 1231(2) each include a recess for supporting a respective bearing 1254, 1256, see Fig. 86, paragraph [0293]), and an impeller 1260 coupled to the end of the shaft/rotor (paragraph [0293]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights