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 1, 8, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1 "HME element" is suggested to be changed to --heat and moisture exchanger (HME) element--.
In claim 1, line 5 "0.3mm" is suggested to be changed to --0.3 millimeters (mm)--
In claim 8, line 1 "HME arrangement" is suggested to be changed to --heat and moisture exchanger (HME) arrangement--.
In claim 8, line 8 "0.3mm" is suggested to be changed to --0.3 millimeters (mm)--.
In claim 18, line 13 "HME arrangement" is suggested to be changed to --heat and moisture exchanger (HME) arrangement--.
In claim 18, line 21 "0.3mm" is suggested to be changed to --0.3 millimeters (mm)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (GB2611182).
With respect to claim 1, Morton discloses an HME element (107, fig 1) for use in an HME arrangement (100, fig 1), the HME element comprising a body (see elements 107 has structure defined by outside 109 and inside 108, fig 1) defining a number of passages (flow channels; 110, fig 2) therethrough, each passage extending between a first face of the body (109, fig 1) and a second face of the body (108, fig 1) opposite the first face (see pg. 5, of translation), wherein each passage of the number of passages has a width in a range (see pg. 6 and 7, second paragraph of translation) and wherein a portion of the body defining each passage has a thickness of at least 0.2mm (see pg. 9, second paragraph of translation and note the body has a thickness of at least 0.2mm).
However, Morton does not expressly disclose the passage having the width in a range of 0.3mm to 2.0mm and the portion of the body has the thickness of at least 0.2mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Morton to have a width between 0.3mm to 2.0mm and a thickness of at least 0.2mm since it is held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patently distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morton would not operate differently with the claimed width and thickness since Morton allows for varying sizes and dimensions so the device would function properly having the claimed ranges. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed.
With respect to claim 2, the modified Morton shows the width is in the range of 0.6mm-0.8mm (see modification of Morton in claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Morton shows the thickness, normal to the passage, is at least 0.4mm (see modification of Morton in claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Morton shows the number of passages comprises a plurality of passages (see the plurality of elements 110 in fig 2 of Morton).
With respect to claim 5, the modified Morton shows each passage of the plurality of passages extends in a straight line between the first face and the second face, and wherein the plurality of passages are disposed parallel to each other (see fig 1 and for explanation purposes as seen in the side view fig 5 the channels 510 extend parallel from 508-509 similar to the channels 110).
With respect to claim 8, Morton discloses an HME arrangement (100, fig 1) comprising a housing (housing; 101, fig 1) defining a passage therethrough (openings 103 and 104 allow passage through 101, fig 1), and a number of HME elements (107, fig 1; two instances) positioned within the housing (see fig 1), each HME element comprising a body (see elements 107 has structure defined by outside 109 and inside 108, fig 1) defining a number of passages (flow channels; 110, fig 2) therethrough, each passage extending between a first face of the body (109, fig 1) and a second face of the body (108, fig 1) opposite the first face (see pg. 5, of translation), wherein each passage of the number of passages has a width in a range (see pg. 7, second paragraph of translation) and wherein a portion of the body defining each passage has a thickness of at least 0.2mm (see pg. 9, second paragraph of translation and note the body has a thickness of at least 0.2mm).
However, Morton does not expressly disclose the passage having the width in a range of 0.3mm to 2.0mm and the portion of the body has the thickness of at least 0.2mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Morton to have a width between 0.3mm to 2.0mm and a thickness of at least 0.2mm since it is held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patently distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morton would not operate differently with the claimed width and thickness since Morton allows for varying sizes and dimensions so the device would function properly having the claimed ranges. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed.
With respect to claim 9, the modified Morton shows the width is in the range of 0.6mm-0.8mm (see modification of Morton in claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 10, the modified Morton shows the thickness, normal to the passage, is at least 0.4mm (see modification of Morton in claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 12, the modified Morton shows the number of passages comprises a plurality of passages (see the plurality of elements 110 in fig 2 of Morton).
With respect to claim 13, the modified Morton shows each passage of the plurality of passages extends in a straight line between the first face and the second face, and wherein the plurality of passages are disposed parallel to each other (see fig 1 and for explanation purposes as seen in the side view fig 5 the channels 510 extend parallel from 508-509 similar to the channels 110 of Morton).
With respect to claim 16, the modified Morton shows the number of HME elements comprises a plurality of HME elements positioned in a series arrangement (see in fig 1 where the two 107 elements are arranged in series next to one another and allow flow in one side and out the other; see pg. 5 of Morton).
With respect to claim 17, the modified Morton shows the body of each HME element of the plurality of HME elements is spaced a predetermined distance from at least one other body of another HME element of the plurality of HME elements (see the space between each element 107 in fig 1 of Morton).
Claim(s) 6-7, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harwood (2016/0250438).
With respect to claim 6, the modified Morton shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks the body comprising a metallic material.
However, Harwood teaches an HME element body (25, fig 1) comprising a metallic material (see [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the body of the modified Morton to be metallic as taught by Harwood to provide a washable/sterilizable material that can be cleaned to reduce containments and bacteria without losing performance (see [0189] of Harwood).
With respect to claim 7, the modified Morton shows the metallic material comprises aluminum (see modification by Harwood; [0188] of Harwood).
With respect to claim 11, the modified Morton shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks the housing comprises an access panel moveable among a first position in which the access panel defines in-part the passage, and a second position in which the access panel exposes an opening through a portion of the housing to the passage, and the number of HME elements are removable from the housing when the access panel is disposed in the second position.
However, Harwood teaches an HME arrangement (figs 13a-b) comprising a housing (62, fig 13a) comprises an access panel (60, fig 13a) moveable among a first position in which the access panel defines in-part the passage (see location of 60 in fig 13b), and a second position in which the access panel exposes an opening through a portion of the housing to the passage (see location of 60 in fig 13D), and an HME element (25, fig 13B) is removable from the housing when the access panel is disposed in the second position (note the access panel is removable allowing access to the element and thus removable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of the modified Morton to include an access panel as taught by Harwood to allow for removal or replacement of the HME element and provide additional airflow through the arrangement.
With respect to claim 14, the modified Morton shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks the body of each HME element comprises a metallic material.
However, Harwood teaches an HME element body (25, fig 1) comprising a metallic material (see [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of each HME element of the modified Morton to be metallic as taught by Harwood to provide a washable/sterilizable material that can be cleaned to reduce containments and bacteria without losing performance (see [0189] of Harwood).
With respect to claim 15, the modified Morton shows the metallic material comprises aluminum (see modification by Harwood; [0188] of Harwood).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood (2016/0250438) in view of Morton (GB2611182).
With respect to claim 18, Harwood discloses a respiratory interface system (1, fig 1) for use in providing a regimen of respiratory therapy to a patient (see [0133]), the respiratory interface system comprising a pressure generating device (blower; 11, fig 1) structured to generate a flow of positive pressure breathing gas (see [0133]); a patient interface (15, fig 1) structured to engage an airway of the patient (see [0133]); a delivery conduit arrangement (14, fig 1) having a first end coupled to the pressure generating device and an opposite second end coupled to the patient interface (see 14 between 15 and 11 in fig 1), the delivery conduit arrangement structured to communicate the flow of positive pressure breathing gas from the pressure generating device to the patient interface such that the delivery conduit arrangement and patient interface define a flow path (see [0133]) which is structured to convey the flow of positive pressure breathing gas from the pressure generating device to the patent; and an HME arrangement positioned along the flow path (18, fig 1), the HME arrangement comprising: a housing (24, fig 2) defining a passage therethrough (see flow 22 fig 2 that passes through passage); and an HME element (26, fig 2) positioned within the housing (see fig 2), but lacks a number of HME elements comprising a body defining a number of passages therethrough, each passage extending between a first face of the body and a second face of the body opposite the first face, wherein each passage of the number of passages has a width.
However, Morton teaches an HME arrangement (100, fig 1) comprising a housing (housing; 101, fig 1) defining a passage therethrough (openings 103 and 104 allow passage through 101, fig 1), and a number of HME elements (107, fig 1; two instances) positioned within the housing (see fig 1), each HME element comprising a body (see elements 107 has structure defined by outside 109 and inside 108, fig 1) defining a number of passages (flow channels; 110, fig 2) therethrough, each passage extending between a first face of the body (109, fig 1) and a second face of the body (108, fig 1) opposite the first face (see pg. 5, of translation), wherein each passage of the number of passages has a width in a range (see pg. 7, second paragraph of translation) and wherein a portion of the body defining each passage has a thickness of at least 0.2mm (see pg. 9, second paragraph of translation and note the body has a thickness of at least 0.2mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the HME element of Harwood with the multiple HME elements as taught by Morton so as to provide heat and moisture exchange for air flow.
Further, after the replacement of HME elements, Morton does not expressly disclose the passage having the width in a range of 0.3mm to 2.0mm and the portion of the body has the thickness of at least 0.2mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Morton to have a width between 0.3mm to 2.0mm and a thickness of at least 0.2mm since it is held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patently distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morton would not operate differently with the claimed width and thickness since Morton allows for varying sizes and dimensions so the device would function properly having the claimed ranges. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graham (2008/0099013) and Marler (7,347,203) are cited to show additional HMEs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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, Timothy 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights