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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 1-2: “of from 100 cm3 to 5000 cm3” should read “of 100 cm3 to 5000 cm3” for clarity.
Claim 4, lines 1-2: “of from 500 cm3 to 3000 cm3” should read “of 500 cm3 to 3000 cm3” for clarity.
Claim 8, line 5: “of from 10 cm3 to 200 cm3” should read “of 10 cm3 to 200 cm3” for clarity.
Claim 9, lines 1-2: “of from 30 cm3 to 100 cm3” should read “of 30 cm3 to 100 cm3” for clarity.
Claim 18, lines 2-3: “of from 1 mm to 50 mm, a width of from 5 mm to 100 mm, and a length of from 1 mm to 100 mm” should read “of 1 mm to 50 mm, a width of 5 mm to 100 mm, and a length of 1 mm to 100 mm” for clarity.
Claim 19, lines 2-3: “of from 1 mm to 20 mm, a width of from 20 mm to 60 mm, and a length of from 20 mm to 60 mm” should read “of 1 mm to 20 mm, a width of 20 mm to 60 mm, and a length of 20 mm to 60 mm” for clarity.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 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 20 recites the limitation “at least one channel” in line 1. It is unclear if this limitation is referencing the first channel and the second channel disclosed in claim 1 (lines 3-4), or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, “at least one channel” will be interpreted as – at least one of the first channel and the second channel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-2, 5-7, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cariola et al. (US 20180193577 A1; hereinafter “Cariola”).
Regarding claim 1, Cariola discloses a ventilator (8000; Fig. 4A; [0033]), wherein the ventilator comprises an inlet (housing inlet 8018; Fig. 4D), an outlet (housing outlet 8020; Fig. 4D), and a blower (8030; Fig. 4D), wherein, between the inlet and the outlet, a respiratory gas path is formed which is routed through the blower (see Fig. 4D; [0141]), wherein a chamber (first chamber 8001; Fig. 4D), a first channel leading into the chamber (inlet tube array 8052, see Fig. 4D), and a second channel leading into the chamber are arranged along the respiratory gas path (flow tube array 8062, see Fig. 4D), and wherein a first acoustic impedance of the first channel and a second acoustic impedance of the second channel deviate from a third acoustic impedance of the chamber, such that a sound generated by the blower is attenuated ([0143]; last sentence of [0144]; [0188]-[0189]; [0206]; [0214]).
Regarding claim 2, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the blower is arranged in the chamber (8030 arranged in 8001, see Fig. 4D), and wherein a blower body (blower housing 8031; Fig. 4I) of the blower (8030) is fastened in the chamber in a vibration-damping manner (8031 fastened in 8001 via blower suspensions 8054 and 8064; Figs. 4E-4G and 4I; [0144], lines 8-13; [0171], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 5, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the respiratory gas path between the inlet (8018) and the chamber (8001) is formed at least in part by the first channel (see Fig. 4D; first sentence of [0145]).
Regarding claim 6, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the respiratory gas path between the outlet (8020) and the chamber (8001) is formed at least in part by the second channel (see Fig. 4D; [0145], line 6 to end of paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the respiratory gas path between the second channel (8062) and the outlet (8020) is routed through the blower (see Fig. 4D; [0145], line 9 to end of paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel (8062) extends protruding into the chamber (see Fig. 4E).
Regarding claim 11, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel and the second channel extend protruding into the chamber to different extents, are oriented differently and/or extend protruding into the chamber from different side walls (see Fig. 4E, where 8052 has a length greater than 8062 and thus extends further into 8001 compared to 8062).
Regarding claim 12, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and the second channel (8062) extend protruding into the chamber (see Fig. 4E), a first opening of the first channel (openings of 8052, see Fig. 4C) and a second opening of the second channel (openings of 8062, see Fig. 4D) being arranged such that, during operation of the ventilator, a respiratory gas flow is established that flows at least in part around the blower (see Figs. 4D-4E, where flow from 8052 enters 8001 before entering 8062, and 8030 is arranged within 8001, hence at least a part of the flow entering 8001 from 8052 will flow around 8030; [0144], lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 13, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel extends outside the chamber from a wall of the chamber (first end portion of inlet tube array 8052A; Fig. 4F; [0188], lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 14, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel (8062) has a curved or undulating profile (see Figs. 4C-4E).
Regarding claim 15, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel (8062) has a cross-sectional area orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the first channel or of the second channel (see Figs. 4C-4E, where 8052 and 8062 each have a cross-sectional area orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of both 8052 and 8062), respectively, the cross-sectional area having, at least in part, a shape selected from rectangular, slit-shaped, crescent-shaped, oval, cross-shaped, X-shaped, star-shaped, a round or angular annular gap, L-shaped, dumbbell-shaped, U-shaped, V-shaped, T-shaped, ellipsoid, trapezoid (see Figs. 4C-4D; first sentence of [0191]; [0197]; [0208]).
Regarding claim 16, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein cross-sectional shapes of the first channel (8052) and of the second channel (8062) are identical (see [0197] and [0208], where 8052 and 8062 may both have cross-sectional shapes that are circular or noncircular in shape, hence 8052 and 8062 may have identical cross-sectional shapes).
Regarding claim 17, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein cross-sectional shapes of the first channel (8052) and of the second channel (8062) are different (see Figs. 4C-4E).
Regarding claim 18, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel have a volume with a depth of from 1 mm to 50 mm ([0193], where depth of 8055 is 3 mm to 5mm and 8052 has a depth of three 8055s, see Fig. 4C, hence 8052 has a depth of about 9 mm to 15 mm), a width of from 5 mm to 100 mm ([0193], where width of 8055 is 3 mm to 5mm and 8052 has a width of three 8055s, see Fig. 4C, hence 8052 has a width of about 9 mm to 15 mm), and a length of from 1 mm to 100 mm ([0193], where 8052 has a length of 35 mm to 55 mm).
Regarding claim 20, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one channel (8052) has a cross-sectional area (100 mm2 to 130 mm2, see [0193], lines 7-9) (A) and a perimeter (see Fig. 4C) (P), and ratio (R) of the square perimeter (P) to the cross-sectional area (A) (see explanation below) according to the formula
R
=
P
2
/
A
(formula is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the isoperimetric ratio and/or shape factor of a shape), wherein (R) has a value of over 14 (8052 has an (R) value of about 45.5 to 123.9, see calculations below).
Cariola discloses the inlet tube array (8052) is a plurality of inlet tubes (8055) with a hexagonal cross-section (see Fig. 4C; [0191]), where it is well-known by one of ordinary skill that the formula for calculating the area of a hexagon is
A
=
1
2
(
P
)
(
a
)
, where P is the perimeter and a is the apothem. Thus, the perimeter for each of the seven inlet tubes (8055) that make up the inlet tube array (8052, see Fig. 4C) can be estimated as,
Perimeter of inlet tube (8055) with an area of 10 mm2 and an apothem of 1.5 mm (see [0193]) is,
10
m
m
2
=
1
2
P
1.5
m
m
P
=
2
10
m
m
2
1.5
m
m
=
13.3
m
m
Perimeter of inlet tube (8055) with an area of 20 mm2 and an apothem of 3.5 mm (see [0193]) is,
20
m
m
2
=
1
2
P
3.5
m
m
P
=
2
20
m
m
2
3.5
m
m
=
11.4
m
m
Thus, the (R) value for each inlet tube (8055) can be calculated accordingly,
The ratio (R) of the square perimeter to the cross-sectional area of each inlet tube (8055), when the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube (8055) is 10 mm2 is,
R
=
13.3
m
m
2
10
m
m
2
=
17.7
The ratio (R) of the square perimeter to the cross-sectional area of each inlet tube (8055), when the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube (8055) is 20 mm2 is,
R
=
11.4
m
m
2
20
m
m
2
=
6.5
m
m
As the inlet tube array (8052) is made up of seven inlet tubes (see Fig. 4C), ratio (R) of the square perimeter to the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube array (8052) can be estimated as,
The ratio (R) of the square perimeter to the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube array (8052), when the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube (8055) is 10 mm2 is,
R
=
R
o
f
i
n
l
e
t
t
u
b
e
*
7
h
e
x
a
g
o
n
s
=
17.7
*
7
=
123.9
The ratio (R) of the square perimeter to the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube array (8052), when the cross-sectional area of the inlet tube (8055) is 20 mm2 is,
R
=
R
o
f
i
n
l
e
t
t
u
b
e
*
7
h
e
x
a
g
o
n
s
=
6.5
*
7
=
45.5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariola (US 20180193577 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1. While Cariola does disclose a chamber (8001) as shown above (see claim 1), Cariola does not explicitly disclose the chamber (8001) has a volume of 100 cm³ to 5000 cm³.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and volume of the chamber (8001) in the Cariola device because Applicant has not disclosed that the chamber having a volume of 100 cm³ to 5000 cm³ provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification states “the volume of the chamber is utilized to accommodate the blower” (pg. 4, line 19 of Applicant’s specification), the chamber can have any cross-sectional shape, can be a long or short configuration, and that “it is advantageous if the chamber has a volume of about 100 cm3 – 5000 cm3, preferably about 500 cm3 – 3000 cm3, particularly preferably about 600 cm3 – 2000 cm3 or about 100-2000 cm3. It has proven particularly advantageous if the chamber has a volume of about 500-1200 cm3 (see pg. 5, lines 21-27 of Applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Cariola’s chamber (8001), and Applicant’s chamber to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of retaining and accommodating the blower. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cariola to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired volume of the chamber and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Cariola.
Regarding claim 4, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1. While Cariola does disclose a chamber (8001) as shown above (see claim 1), Cariola does not explicitly disclose the chamber (8001) has a volume of 500 cm³ to 3000 cm³.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and volume of the chamber (8001) in the Cariola device because Applicant has not disclosed that the chamber having a volume of 500 cm³ to 3000 cm³ provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification states “the volume of the chamber is utilized to accommodate the blower” (pg. 4, line 19 of Applicant’s specification), the chamber can have any cross-sectional shape, can be a long or short configuration, and that “it is advantageous if the chamber has a volume of about 100 cm3 – 5000 cm3, preferably about 500 cm3 – 3000 cm3, particularly preferably about 600 cm3 – 2000 cm3 or about 100-2000 cm3. It has proven particularly advantageous if the chamber has a volume of about 500-1200 cm3 (see pg. 5, lines 21-27 of Applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Cariola’s chamber (8001), and Applicant’s chamber to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of retaining and accommodating the blower. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cariola to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired volume of the chamber and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Cariola.
Regarding claim 8, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the second channel (8062) leads into an auxiliary chamber (second chamber 8002; Figs. 4C-4E), wherein a fourth acoustic impedance of the auxiliary chamber deviates from the second acoustic impedance of the second channel such that the sound generated by the blower is additionally attenuated ([0144]; [0146]; [0206]).
While Cariola does disclose an auxiliary chamber (8002) as shown above, Cariola does not explicitly disclose the auxiliary chamber (8002) has a volume of 10 cm³ to 200 cm³.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and volume of the auxiliary chamber (8002) in the Cariola device because Applicant has not disclosed that the chamber having a volume of 10 cm³ to 200 cm³ provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification states the auxiliary chamber can have any shape and that “it is advantageous if the auxiliary chamber has a volume of about 10-200 cm3. A volume of about 30- 100cm3 has proven particularly advantageous (see pg. 6, 11-13 of Applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Cariola’s second chamber (8002), and Applicant’s auxiliary chamber to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of receiving an air flow from the second channel and providing said air flow to the blower. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cariola to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired volume of the auxiliary chamber and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Cariola.
Regarding claim 9, Cariola as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8.
While Cariola does disclose an auxiliary chamber (8002) as shown above, Cariola does not explicitly disclose the auxiliary chamber (8002) has a volume of 30 cm³ to 100 cm³.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and volume of the auxiliary chamber (8002) in the Cariola device because Applicant has not disclosed that the chamber having a volume of 30 cm³ to 100 cm³ provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, Applicant’s specification states the auxiliary chamber can have any shape and that “it is advantageous if the auxiliary chamber has a volume of about 10-200 cm3. A volume of about 30- 100cm3 has proven particularly advantageous (see pg. 6, 11-13 of Applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Cariola’s second chamber (8002), and Applicant’s auxiliary chamber to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of receiving an air flow from the second channel and providing said air flow to the blower. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cariola to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired volume of the auxiliary chamber and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Cariola.
Regarding claim 19, Cariola discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel have a volume with a depth of from 1 mm to 20 mm ([0193], where depth of 8055 is 3 mm to 5mm and 8052 has a depth of three 8055s, see Fig. 4C, hence 8052 has a depth of about 9 mm to 15 mm) and a length of from 20 mm to 60 mm ([0193], where 8052 has a length of 35 mm to 55 mm). Cariola further discloses the first channel (8052) has a width of about 9 mm to 15 mm ([0193], where width of 8055 is 3 mm to 5mm and 8052 has a width of three 8055s, see Fig. 4C, hence 8052 has a width of about 9 mm to 15 mm), but fails to explicitly disclose the first channel (8052) and/or the second channel have a width of from 20 mm to 60 mm.
However, Cariola does teach width of the first channel (8052) may be a width other than a width of about 9 mm to 15 mm such that the width of the first channel (8052) provides a desired noise characteristic (last sentence of [0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discover the optimal workable range for the width of the first channel (8052) since the general conditions of the claimed method are disclosed in the prior art (See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A) and there are a finite number of identified, predictable widths of the first channel (8052) such that the first channel (8052) is an optimal width to achieve a desired noise characteristic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Taylor et al. (US 20170340847 A1): Regarding a ventilator with a pneumatic module inserted in a chassis and is fastened to a molded seat in the chassis via shock absorbers and/or elastomeric supports.
Truitt (US 7975688 B1): Regarding a respiratory treatment device with a vibration reducing blower assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights