DETAILED ACTION
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
The Amendment filed 29 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13 and 20 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11 Mar 2026.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn as requested (Pg. 9-11) based on the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4, 13-19 and 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, Ln. 1-2 recites “an axis of the inlet” which should read “the axis of the inlet” following after claim 1
Claim 13, Ln. 26 recites “an axis of the inlet” which should read “the axis of the inlet” following after Ln. 25 of the claim
Claim 23, Ln. 1-2 recites “the ventilation component” which should read “the ventilation component” for consistency with claim 20 (unless only a single ventilation component is intended, which would need to be made clear in the claim)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one ventilation component that is provided within the gas passage, configured to communicate with the at least two chambers and provide a channel for the gas to flow from one chamber to another” in claim 20. The language “ventilation component” is read as generally the same as “component for ventilation”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the “ventilation component” is best understood from the specification as at least: ventilation component 5 which has a series of baffles with spacing between the baffles forming air channels (e.g. Pg. 17-18; Figs. 8-13).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 117404338 A; citations from machine translation attached with Office action mailed 11 Mar 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (any of Figs. 8 & 10-11; Pg. 5-7) for use in a PAP machine (Fig. 1), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient (Pg. 2), the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Fig. 1 #1, 2; Pg. 5) comprising at least two parts (Fig. 1 #1, 2), having an outlet (Fig. 3 #21; Pg. 4), an inlet (Fig. 1 #11; Pg. 4), inner walls (Fig. 1 #1, 2 have internal walls), and outer walls (Fig. 1 #1, 2 have outer walls); a gas passage (e.g. arrows shown in Figs. 7 & 9), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least one chamber (Figs. 8 & 10-11 interior of #1, 2) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow; a blower (Fig. 1 #7; Pg. 4), including an intake port (Figs. 7 & 9 arrows into bottom of fan 7) to receive gas and an exhaust port (exit port of #7 facing the view of Fig. 5) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Figs. 8 & 10-11) of the at least one chamber, and is configured to pressurize the gas that enters the at least one chamber and deliver the pressurized gas to the outlet of the casing; wherein the outlet and the inlet are not provided on a same inner wall or outer wall of the casing (Figs. 1 & 6); wherein the casing is configured such that a path of the gas includes the gas entering the at least one chamber via the inlet of the casing, flowing through the gas passage, entering the blower through the intake port, and exiting the casing through the outlet (e.g. Figs. 7 & 9), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns (Figs. 7 & 9) and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Figs. 1-4 & 8-11) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (Figs. 1-4 & 8-11), wherein the at least three elevation changes include at least an elevation change within the gas passage extending from an upper portion (e.g. Figs. 7 & 9 rightward arrow above #7) of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion (e.g. Figs. 7 & 9 upward arrow into #7) of the at least one chamber, wherein a shortest vertical elevation drop of the path along the z-axis is at least 15 mm (Figs. 7 & 9 only elevation drop is across fan 7 which must be at least 15 mm tall), wherein an axis of the inlet of the casing is horizontally disposed (Fig. 1). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least one chamber does not include foam.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing all of the figures of Yu would have considered it prima facie obvious that fan 7 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of first shell 1 and second shell 2, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space. Thus, the illustration all of the figures of Yu would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber. Additionally, while Yu is silent about foam usage Yu does teach that a concern that prior art devices use silencing sound-absorbing material can generate toxic gas across long-term use (Pg. 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious that Yu is at least suggesting an obvious an avoidance of foam, as foam is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as a common silencing sound-absorbing material which can generate toxic gas across long-term use.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Yu a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least one chamber does not include foam based upon how the illustrations across the figures of Yu are obviously suggestive of the claimed volume proportionality and based upon how Yu teaches a desire to avoid prior art silencing sound-absorbing material which can generate toxic gas across long-term use.
Regarding claim 2, Yu further teaches the inlet of the casing is configured to be integrally formed with the casing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yu further suggests as obvious a distance between the intake port of the blower and the inner walls of the casing is at least 5 mm (e.g. Figs. 7 & 9).
Regarding claim 4, Yu further teaches the axis of the inlet of the casing is
Regarding claim 5, Yu further teaches an outlet pipe (Fig. 6 #21; Pg. 4) is provided at the outlet and communicates with the exhaust port of the blower.
Regarding claim 6, Yu further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashiyama et al. (WO Pub. 2017/217440 A1; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Higashiyama discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Fig. 8; Pg. 6-7) for use in a PAP machine (Pg. 2), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient, the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Fig. 5 #12) having an outlet (Fig. 8 #824; Pg. 6), an inlet (Fig. 8 #121; Pg. 6), inner walls (Fig. 8 various inner walls), and outer walls (Fig. 8 various outer walls); a gas passage (Fig. 8 arrows), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least one chamber (Fig. 8 interior of #12) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow; a blower (Fig. 8 #22; Pg. 2), including an intake port (Fig. 8 #243; Pg. 2) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 8 #242; Pg. 3) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 8) of the at least one chamber, and is configured to pressurize the gas that enters the at least one chamber and deliver the pressurized gas to the outlet of the casing; wherein the outlet and the inlet are not provided on a same inner wall or outer wall of the casing (Fig. 8); wherein the casing is configured such that a path of the gas includes the gas entering the at least one chamber via the inlet of the casing, flowing through the gas passage, entering the blower through the intake port, and exiting the casing through the outlet (Fig. 8 arrows), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 8 arrows and rotational motion through #22) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (Fig. 8 arrows – down, up, up again), wherein the at least three elevation changes include at least an elevation change within the gas passage extending from an upper portion of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion of the at least one chamber (Fig. 8 initial downward arrows from #121 to #243), wherein a shortest vertical elevation drop of the path along the z-axis is at least 15 mm (Fig. 8 only elevation drop is from #121 to #243 which must be at least 15 mm), wherein an axis of the inlet of the casing is horizontally disposed (Fig. 8). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Higashiyama is silent as to the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least one chamber does not include foam.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have noted the appearance in the top four corners of housing 12 of what appear to be screw or bolt holes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 would thus have obviously expected housing 12 to be formed of a top panel which includes the electronics of LCD 15 and switches 16 which is then connected to a bottom housing part via screws or bolts. Thus, the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have considered it prima facie obvious that fan 22 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 12, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space. Thus, the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber. Additionally, Higashiyama is silent about foam usage. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have not had any expectation that foam is needed or intended in Higashiyama.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Higashiyama the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least one chamber does not include foam based upon how 1) the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts which are either screwed or bolted together, 2) the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama are obviously suggestive of the claimed volume proportionality and 3) based upon how Higashiyama does not teach or suggest any need for or intent to use foam.
Regarding claim 2, Higashiyama further teaches the inlet of the casing is configured to be integrally formed with the casing (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Higashiyama further suggests as obvious a distance between the intake port of the blower and the inner walls of the casing is at least 5 mm (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Higashiyama further teaches the axis of the inlet of the casing is
Regarding claim 5, Higashiyama further teaches an outlet pipe (Fig. 8 #824) is provided at the outlet and communicates with the exhaust port of the blower.
Regarding claim 6, Higashiyama further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding claim 7, Higashiyama discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Fig. 8; Pg. 6-7) for use in a PAP machine (Pg. 2), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient, the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Fig. 5 #12) having an outlet (Fig. 8 #824; Pg. 6), an inlet (Fig. 8 #121; Pg. 6), inner walls (Fig. 8 various inner walls), and outer walls (Fig. 8 various outer walls); a gas passage (Fig. 8 arrows), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least two chambers (Fig. 8 #87A, 87B; Pg. 6) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow; a blower (Fig. 8 #22; Pg. 2), including an intake port (Fig. 8 #243; Pg. 2) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 8 #242; Pg. 3) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one of the at least two chambers (Fig. 8 #87A), and is configured to pressurize the gas that enters the at least two chambers and deliver the pressurized gas to the outlet of the casing; wherein an inlet pipe (Fig. 8 #121) is provided at and connectable to the inlet of the casing, and the inlet pipe is configured to deliver the gas from an external environment into the at least two chambers within the casing; wherein the casing is configured such that a path of the gas includes the gas entering the at least two chambers via the inlet of the casing, flowing through the gas passage, entering the blower through the intake port, and exiting the casing through the outlet (Fig. 8 arrows), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 8 arrows and rotational motion through #22) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (Fig. 8 arrows – down, up, up again), wherein the at least three elevation changes include at least an elevation change within the gas passage extending from an upper portion of the at least two chambers to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion of one of the at least two chambers (Fig. 8 initial downward arrows from #121 to #243), wherein an axis of the inlet of the casing is horizontally disposed (Fig. 8). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Higashiyama is silent as to the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least two chambers do not include foam.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have noted the appearance in the top four corners of housing 12 of what appear to be screw or bolt holes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 would thus have obviously expected housing 12 to be formed of a top panel which includes the electronics of LCD 15 and switches 16 which is then connected to a bottom housing part via screws or bolts. Thus, the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have considered it prima facie obvious that fan 22 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 12, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space. Thus, the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber. Additionally, Higashiyama is silent about foam usage. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have not had any expectation that foam is needed or intended in Higashiyama.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Higashiyama the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; and wherein the at least two chambers do not include foam based upon how 1) the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts which are either screwed or bolted together, 2) the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama are obviously suggestive of the claimed volume proportionality and 3) based upon how Higashiyama does not teach or suggest any need for or intent to use foam.
Regarding claim 9, Higashiyama further teaches the inlet pipe is provided at an edge portion of the casing (Fig. 8), and the inlet pipe and the outlet of the casing are not on a same wall of the casing (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Higashiyama further suggests as obvious a distance between the intake port of the blower and its opposing inner wall of the casing is at least 2 mm (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Higashiyama further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding claim 13, Higashiyama discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Fig. 8; Pg. 6-7) for use in a PAP machine (Pg. 2), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient, the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Fig. 5 #12) having an outlet (Fig. 8 #824; Pg. 6), an inlet (Fig. 8 #121; Pg. 6), inner walls (Fig. 8 various inner walls), and outer walls (Fig. 8 various outer walls); a gas passage (Fig. 8 arrows), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least one chamber (Fig. 8 interior of #12) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow; a blower (Fig. 8 #22; Pg. 2), including an intake port (Fig. 8 #243; Pg. 2) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 8 #242; Pg. 3) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 8) of the at least one chamber, and wherein the blower is configured to pressurize the gas that enters the at least one chamber and deliver the pressurized gas to the outlet of the casing; wherein an inlet pipe (Fig. 8 #121) is provided at and connectable to the inlet of the casing, and the inlet pipe is configured to deliver the gas from an external environment into the at least one chamber within the casing (Fig. 8); wherein the casing is configured such that a path of the gas includes the gas entering the at least one chamber via the inlet of the casing, flowing through the gas passage, entering the blower through the intake port, and exiting the casing through the outlet (Fig. 8 arrows), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 8 arrows and rotational motion through #22) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (Fig. 8 arrows – down, up, up again), wherein the at least three elevation changes include at least an elevation change within the gas passage extending from an upper portion of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion of the at least one chamber (Fig. 8 initial downward arrows from #121 to #243), wherein an axis of the inlet of the casing is horizontally disposed (Fig. 8), and wherein an axis of the intake port of the blower is non-parallel to an axis of the inlet of the casing (Fig. 8). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Higashiyama is silent as to the casing comprising at least two parts; and a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have noted the appearance in the top four corners of housing 12 of what appear to be screw or bolt holes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 would thus have obviously expected housing 12 to be formed of a top panel which includes the electronics of LCD 15 and switches 16 which is then connected to a bottom housing part via screws or bolts. Thus, the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have considered it prima facie obvious that fan 22 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 12, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space. Thus, the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Higashiyama the casing comprising at least two parts; and a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower based upon how 1) the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts which are either screwed or bolted together and 2) the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama are obviously suggestive of the claimed volume proportionality.
Regarding claim 15, Higashiyama further teaches the inner walls of the casing are configured to form at least two chambers (Fig. 8 #87A, 87B; Pg. 6) for gas accumulation within the gas passage.
Regarding claim 16, Higashiyama further suggests as obvious the inner walls of the casing opposite the path of the gas have an arcuate surface (Fig. 5 rounded inner corners).
Regarding claim 17, Higashiyama further suggests as obvious a distance between the intake port of the blower and its opposing inner wall of the casing is at least 2 mm (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Higashiyama further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Higashiyama further suggests as obvious the at least one chamber does not include foam. Higashiyama is silent about foam usage. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have not had any expectation that foam is needed or intended in Higashiyama.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashiyama et al. (WO Pub. 2017/217440 A1; citations from attached machine translation) in view of Librett et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0299130).
Regarding claim 8, Higashiyama fails to teach the inner walls of the casing include a silicone layer connectable to the inner walls, and the silicone layer is configured to reduce noise within the gas passage.
Librett teaches a PAP device (e.g. Fig. 1) wherein inner walls of the PAP device include a silicone layer (¶¶0034-0035) connectable to the inner walls. Librett teaches a silicone layer as providing the benefit of being a lining material for the housing of the PAP device which is specifically selected as a noise attenuating material (¶0034).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Higashiyama the inner walls of the casing include a silicone layer connectable to the inner walls, and the silicone layer is configured to reduce noise within the gas passage in order to provide the benefit of being a lining material for the housing of the PAP device which is specifically selected as a noise attenuating material in view of Librett.
Regarding claim 14, Higashiyama fails to teach the inner walls of the casing include a silicone layer connectable to the inner walls, and the silicone layer is configured to reduce noise within the gas passage.
Librett teaches a PAP device (e.g. Fig. 1) wherein inner walls of the PAP device include a silicone layer (¶¶0034-0035) connectable to the inner walls. Librett teaches a silicone layer as providing the benefit of being a lining material for the housing of the PAP device which is specifically selected as a noise attenuating material (¶0034).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Higashiyama the inner walls of the casing include a silicone layer connectable to the inner walls, and the silicone layer is configured to reduce noise within the gas passage in order to provide the benefit of being a lining material for the housing of the PAP device which is specifically selected as a noise attenuating material in view of Librett.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashiyama et al. (WO Pub. 2017/217440 A1; citations from attached machine translation) in view of Gerlach (U.S. Pub. 2024/0358943).
Regarding claim 10, Higashiyama fails to teach the inlet pipe is tapered.
Gerlach teaches a ventilator including an inlet pipe (Fig. 6 #7; ¶0075) which is tapered. Gerlach teaches a tapered inlet as providing the benefit of achieving a noise reduction based upon its tapered design (¶0075).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Higashiyama the inlet pipe is tapered in order to provide the benefit of achieving a noise reduction at the inlet pipe based upon a tapered design in view of Gerlach.
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashiyama et al. (WO Pub. 2017/217440 A1; citations from attached machine translation) in view of Chen (U.S. Pub. 2024/0207545).
Regarding claim 20, Higashiyama discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Fig. 8; Pg. 6-7) for use in a PAP machine (Pg. 2), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient, the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Fig. 5 #12) having an outlet (Fig. 8 #824; Pg. 6), an inlet (Fig. 8 #121; Pg. 6), inner walls (Fig. 8 various inner walls), and outer walls (Fig. 8 various outer walls); a gas passage (Fig. 8 arrows), formed by the space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least two chambers (Fig. 8 #87A, 87B; Pg. 6) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow; a blower (Fig. 8 #22; Pg. 2), including an intake port (Fig. 8 #243; Pg. 2) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 8 #242; Pg. 3) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one of the at least two chambers (Fig. 8 #87A), and wherein the blower is configured to pressurize the gas that enters the at least two chambers and deliver the pressurized gas to the outlet of the casing (Fig. 8); wherein the noise-reducing air passage device further comprises at least one ventilation component (Fig. 8 #825; Pg. 6) that is provided within the gas passage, configured to communicate with the at least two chambers and provide a channel for the gas to flow from one chamber to another; wherein a main path of the gas within the gas passage is an airflow path (Fig. 8 arrows), wherein the airflow path is configured to have at least two turns and displacements along an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 8 arrows and rotational motion through #22) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering the inlet of the casing and the gas exiting the outlet of the casing (Fig. 8 arrows – down, up, up again), and wherein a shortest vertical elevation drop of the path along the z-axis is at least 15 mm (Fig. 8 only elevation drop is from #121 to #243 which must be at least 15 mm); wherein the at least three elevation changes include at least an elevation change within the gas passage extending from an upper portion of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion of the at least one chamber (Fig. 8 initial downward arrows from #121 to #243), and wherein an axis of the inlet of the casing is horizontally disposed (Fig. 8). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02). Wall 825 is read as at least a functional equivalent of the disclosed ventilation component based upon its role in allowing gas passage will participating in noise reduction (Pg. 6).
Higashiyama is silent as to the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; a total length of the airflow path is greater than 20 cm; and wherein an area of the inlet of the casing is greater than or equal to an area of the intake port of the blower.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have noted the appearance in the top four corners of housing 12 of what appear to be screw or bolt holes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 1 & 5 would thus have obviously expected housing 12 to be formed of a top panel which includes the electronics of LCD 15 and switches 16 which is then connected to a bottom housing part via screws or bolts. Thus, the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have considered it prima facie obvious that fan 22 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 12, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space. Thus, the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 5 & 8 of Higashiyama would have considered it prima facie obvious that the dimensions of housing 12 include a length of at least close to 20 cm. The airflow path then includes further dimensional directional changes between just the length dimension which one ordinary skill in the art would obviously expect to result in a total airflow path of at least 20 cm. Thus, the illustration of Figs. 5 & 8 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the required airflow path length of the claim.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Higashiyama the casing comprising at least two parts; a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; a total length of the airflow path is greater than 20 cm based upon how 1) the illustration of Figs. 1 & 5 of Higashiyama would have obviously suggested the casing comprising at least two parts which are either screwed or bolted together, 2) the illustration of Fig. 8 of Higashiyama are obviously suggestive of the claimed volume proportionality and 3) the illustration of Figs. 5 & 8 of Higashiyama are obviously suggestive of the claimed airflow path length.
Chen teaches a ventilator (Figs. 1-8) including an inlet (Figs. 1-3 #13; ¶0037) of a casing and an intake port (Figs. 3-4 #21) of a blower (Figs. 2-3 #2; ¶0037). Chen illustrates as obvious an area of the inlet of the casing is at least equal to an area of the intake port of the blower when considering the views of Figs. 3-4 and considering how air intake 21 is a relatively small, gridded opening. Chen thus represents an expectation which one of ordinary skill in the art would have that the area of the intake port of the blower need not be greater than the area of the inlet of the casing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Higashiyama an area of the inlet of the casing is greater than or equal to an area of the intake port of the blower based upon an obvious expectation which one of ordinary skill in the art would have that the area of the intake port of the blower need not be greater than the area of the inlet of the casing, such as when considering the specific dimensions illustrated in Figs. 3-4 of Chen.
Regarding claim 21, Higashiyama further teaches the at least two chambers comprise a first chamber (Fig. 8 #87A; Pg. 6) and a second chamber (Fig. 8 #87B; Pg. 6), the blower is provided within the first chamber (Fig. 8), and the intake port of the blower communicates with the second chamber (Fig. 8 – what passes through the intake port will travel to the second chamber). The claim does not require the intake port of the blower to directly interact with the second chamber.
Regarding claim 22, Higashiyama further teaches the second chamber is smaller than the first chamber (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 23, Higashiyama further teaches the ventilation component includes an intake end (Fig. 8 left side of #825) and an exhaust end (Fig. 8 right side of #825), and a distance between the exhaust end and its opposing inner wall of the casing is at least 3.5 mm (Fig. 8). The instant claim does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 24, Higashiyama further teaches an outlet pipe (Fig. 8 #824) is provided at the outlet and communicates with the exhaust port of the blower (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 25, Higashiyama further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Regarding the independent claims further attention is drawn to: Boulanger et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0404482; Fig. 8) and Chen (U.S. Pub. 2024/0207545; Figs. 1 & 3).
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 JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 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 on (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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights