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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon et al (US 2012/0199129), hereinafter Kenyon in view of Mebasser et al (US 2014/0069432), hereinafter Mebasser.
Regarding claim 1, Kenyon teaches a continuous airway pressure (CPAP) device for sending air suctioned into the CPAP device to an airway of a user (paragraph 68, paragraph 112), the CPAP device comprising:
an air blower (Fig. 5: 210, paragraph 144); and
a housing (Fig. 5: 205) in which an air blower chamber is provided to accommodate the air blower (Fig. 5: interior of housing 205) , wherein
the air blower includes an impeller rotatable about a rotation axis (Fig.5: impeller 260 rotates about central axis), a drive unit that drives to rotate the impeller (paragraph 144, a motor positioned within stationary component 230 and adapted to drive a rotatable shaft or rotor), and a casing surrounding the impeller (Fig. 5, paragraph 144, housing 220 with first and second housing parts 222, 224),
the casing is provided with a suction port for suctioning air inside the air blower chamber into the casing (Fig. 5: inlet 226, paragraph 145), and a discharge port for discharging the air inside the casing to outside of the casing (Fig. 5: 228, paragraph 145),
the suction port is located at a top plate portion overlapping with the rotation axis (Fig. 5: top plate 222), the top plate portion being one of a pair of wall portions of the casing (Fig. 5: 222 and 224), the pair of wall portions sandwiching the impeller in a direction in which the rotation axis extends (Fig. 5),
wall portions defining the air blower chamber include a wall portion that is located at a portion not overlapping with the top portion when seen along the direction in which the rotation axis extends and that is provided with an introduction port for introducing air outside the housing in the air blower chamber (Fig. 5: see below, wall portion has introduction port 208, paragraph 148),
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the air blower chamber includes a facing wall portion facing the top plate portion with a distance between the facing wall portion and the top plate portion (Fig. 5: top of outer housing 207) and
the introduction port is provided at a position separated by the casing when viewed from the suction port. (See Fig. 5: the introduction port is provided at a position separated by the casing when viewed from the suction port).
Kenyon does not teach a flow adjustment portion that partitions at least a portion of the space into a plurality of flow paths.
However, Mebasser teaches a blower for a cpap device (Fig. 1) which has in a space between the facing wall portion and the top plate portion (Figs. 28, 29, 103-107), a flow adjustment portion that partitions at least a portion of the space into a plurality of flow paths arranged side by side around the rotation axis is provided (paragraph 164, vanes 206, located above inlet 206 are structured to direct airflow towards the inlet 123. The vanes are coupled to the outer surface of the top cover 120 of the blower casing), and
an outer end portion and an inner end portion of each of the plurality of flow paths in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis include respectively a first open end and a second open end, the first open end and the second open end being open along the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis. (Fig. 103-104, both ends of the flow path between vanes 206 is open and is orthogonal to the axis through the center of the inlet opening.)
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the blower of Kenyon to include the flow adjustment portion of Mebasser, since Mebasser teaches that the vanes (flow adjustment portion) may assist in reducing the radiated noise from inlet 123 and increase efficiency of the blower. (paragraph 164)
Regarding claim 8, Kenyon in view of Mebasser teaches the CPAP device according to claim 1, and Mebasser further teaches wherein the flow adjustment portion is provided on the top plate portion to protrude toward the facing wall portion. (paragraph 164, located on top plate 120)
Regarding claim 9, Kenyon in view of Mebasser teaches the CPAP device according to claim 1, and Mebasser further teaches wherein the flow adjustment portion is provided on the facing wall portion to protrude toward the top plate portion. (See Figs. 103-107)
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,612, hereinafter Pat No. ‘612 in view of Kenyon.
Regarding claim 1, Pat. No ‘612 teaches all of the limitations of the claims except the introduction port is provided at a position separated by the casing when viewed from the suction port. (Claims 1 and 8 teach all of the limitations of the claims)
However, Kenyon teaches a blower for a cpap device which has the introduction port is provided at a position separated by the casing when viewed from the suction port.
(See Fig. 5: the introduction port is provided at a position separated by the casing when viewed from the suction port).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the introduction port provided at a position separated by the casing as taught by Kenyon in order to reduce a portion of the noise from the blower radiated to the inlet. (paragraph 148)
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are taught by claim 2 of the patent.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are taught by claim 3 of the patent.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are taught by claim 4 of the patent.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are taught by claim 5 of the patent.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are taught by claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are taught by claim 7 of the patent.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are taught by claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are taught by claim 8 of the patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:00 pm MT.
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 on 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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
