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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 Dec 2025 (following the RCE filed 06 Jan 2026) has been entered.
Claims 1-25 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 7, 13 and 20 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 07 Oct 2025.
The claims are no longer found allowable over the prior art following the amendment to the claims.
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(s) 2 and 4 is/are 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 2 recites the limitation "the inlet pipe" in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It appears claim 1 may have been inadvertently amended to delete its introduction of an inlet pipe.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inlet pipe" in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It appears claim 1 may have been inadvertently amended to delete its introduction of an inlet pipe.
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) 1-7, 9-13 and 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach (U.S. Pub. 2024/0358943).
Regarding claim 1, Gerlach discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Figs. 1-3 #1; ¶0063) for use in a PAP machine (¶0004), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient (¶¶0003-0004), the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Figs. 1-2 #2; ¶0063) comprising at least two parts (seen in view of Fig. 2), having an outlet (Fig. 1 #3; ¶0063), an inlet (Fig. 2 #6; ¶0065), inner walls (Fig. 2 various internal walls of #2), and outer walls (Fig. 1 various exterior walls of #2); a gas passage (Figs. 2-3 from #6 to #3), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least one chamber (Figs. 2-3 interior of #2) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow (¶0065); a blower (Fig. 2 #5; ¶0064), including an intake port (Fig. 2 from #10; ¶0065) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 3 exit from #5 to Fig. 1 #3; ¶0065) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 2) 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶0065); wherein the outlet and the inlet are not provided on a same inner wall or outer wall of the casing (Figs. 1-2); 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 (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (e.g. Figs. 2-3 up through #7, down through #8, up through #10), 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. 2-3 entrance to #8) of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion (Fig. 2 entrance to #10)of the at least one chamber, wherein a shortest vertical elevation drop of the path along the z-axis is at least 15 mm (¶0032 – length dimension), and wherein the at least one chamber does not include foam (¶0012 – free of foam). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Gerlach fails to explicitly disclose 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. 2-3 of Gerlach would have considered it prima facie obvious that blower 5 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 2, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space (see also volume discussion in ¶0020). Thus, the illustration in Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach 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 Gerlach a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower based upon how the illustration in Figs. 2-3 are obviously suggestive of this proportionality.
Regarding claim 2, Gerlach further teaches an inlet pipe (Figs. 2-3 #7; ¶0065) is configured to be integrally formed with the casing (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Gerlach 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. 2 – #5 is obviously at least 5 mm from inner walls of #2). The claim does not require the intake port to be at least 5 mm from all of the inner walls of the casing. (It is noted that attempting to specify the intake port of the blower as at least 5 mm from all inner walls of the casing would result in a new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as the application as originally filed lacks that specificity.)
Regarding claim 4, Gerlach further teaches an axis (Fig. 2 vertical through #7) of an inlet pipe (Figs. 2-3 #7; ¶0065) is parallel
Regarding claim 5, Gerlach further teaches an outlet pipe (Fig. 1 #3; ¶0063) is provided at the outlet and communicates with the exhaust port of the blower (¶0065).
Regarding claim 6, Gerlach further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 1; ¶¶0003-0004).
Regarding claim 7, Gerlach discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Figs. 1-3 #1; ¶0063) for use in a PAP machine (¶0004), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient (¶¶0003-0004), the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Figs. 1-2 #2; ¶0063) comprising at least two parts (seen in view of Fig. 2), having an outlet (Fig. 1 #3; ¶0063), an inlet (Fig. 2 #6; ¶0065), inner walls (Fig. 2 various internal walls of #2), and outer walls (Fig. 1 various exterior walls of #2); a gas passage (Figs. 2-3 from #6 to #3), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least two chambers (Figs. 2-3 interior of #2) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow (¶0065); a blower (Fig. 2 #5; ¶0064), including an intake port (Fig. 2 from #10; ¶0065) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 3 exit from #5 to Fig. 1 #3; ¶0065) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 2) of the at least two chambers, 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶0065); wherein an inlet pipe (Figs. 2-3 #7; ¶0065) 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 (Fig. 2); 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 (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (e.g. Figs. 2-3 up through #7, down through #8, up through #10), 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. 2-3 entrance to #8) of the at least two chambers to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion (Fig. 2 entrance to #10) of one of the at least two chambers, and wherein the at least two chambers do not include foam (¶0012 – free of foam). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Gerlach fails to explicitly disclose a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of a blower.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach would have considered it prima facie obvious that blower 5 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 2, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space (see also volume discussion in ¶0020). Thus, the illustration in Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach 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 Gerlach a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower based upon how the illustration in Figs. 2-3 are obviously suggestive of this proportionality.
Regarding claim 9, Gerlach further teaches the inlet pipe is provided at an edge portion of the casing (Fig. 2), and the inlet pipe and the outlet of the casing are not on a same wall of the casing (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Gerlach further teaches the inlet pipe is tapered (Fig. 6; ¶0075 – widens).
Regarding claim 11, Gerlach 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. 2 – #5 is obviously at least 5 mm from inner walls of #2).
Regarding claim 12, Gerlach further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 1; ¶¶0003-0004).
Regarding claim 13, Gerlach discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Figs. 1-3 #1; ¶0063) for use in a PAP machine (¶0004), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient (¶¶0003-0004), the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Figs. 1-2 #2; ¶0063) comprising at least two parts (seen in view of Fig. 2), having an outlet (Fig. 1 #3; ¶0063), an inlet (Fig. 2 #6; ¶0065), inner walls (Fig. 2 various internal walls of #2), and outer walls (Fig. 1 various exterior walls of #2); a gas passage (Figs. 2-3 from #6 to #3), formed by a space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least one chamber (Figs. 2-3 interior of #2) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow (¶0065); a blower (Fig. 2 #5; ¶0064), including an intake port (Fig. 2 from #10; ¶0065) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 3 exit from #5 to Fig. 1 #3; ¶0065) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 2) 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶0065); wherein an inlet pipe (Figs. 2-3 #7; ¶0065) 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. 2); 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 (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065), wherein the path of the gas includes at least two turns (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and movement along x, y, and z axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and at least three elevation changes along the z-axis from the gas entering and the gas exiting the casing (e.g. Figs. 2-3 up through #7, down through #8, up through #10), 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. 2-3 entrance to #8) of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion (e.g. Figs. 2-3 entrance to #10) of the at least one chamber, and wherein an axis of the intake port of the blower is non-parallel to an axis of the inlet of the casing (Fig. 4 – axis of first channel 7 is curved and nozzle 10 is not curved). The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Gerlach fails to explicitly disclose a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of a blower.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach would have considered it prima facie obvious that blower 5 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 2, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space (see also volume discussion in ¶0020). Thus, the illustration in Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach 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 Gerlach a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower based upon how the illustration in Figs. 2-3 are obviously suggestive of this proportionality.
Regarding claim 15, Gerlach further teaches the inner walls of the casing are configured to form at least two chambers (e.g. Fig. 2 #4, 9; ¶¶0065-0065) for gas accumulation within the gas passage.
Regarding claim 16, Gerlach further teaches the inner walls of the casing opposite the path of the gas have an arcuate surface (Figs. 1 & 3-8 rounded inner corners).
Regarding claim 17, Gerlach 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. 2 – #5 is obviously at least 5 mm from inner walls of #2).
Regarding claim 18, Gerlach further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 1; ¶¶0003-0004).
Regarding claim 19, Gerlach further teaches the at least one chamber does not include foam (¶0012 – free of foam).
Regarding claim 20, Gerlach discloses a noise-reducing air passage device (Figs. 1-3 #1; ¶0063) for use in a PAP machine (¶0004), configured to generate and deliver pressurized gas to an airway of a patient (¶¶0003-0004), the noise-reducing air passage device comprising: a casing (Figs. 1-2 #2; ¶0063) comprising at least two parts (seen in view of Fig. 2), having an outlet (Fig. 1 #3; ¶0063), an inlet (Fig. 2 #6; ¶0065), inner walls (Fig. 2 various internal walls of #2), and outer walls (Fig. 1 various exterior walls of #2); a gas passage (Figs. 2-3 from #6 to #3), formed by the space enclosed by the inner walls of the casing, wherein the gas passage comprises at least two chambers (Figs. 2-3 interior of #2) configured to provide a space for gas accumulation and flow (¶0065); a blower (Fig. 2 #5; ¶0064), including an intake port (Fig. 2 from #10; ¶0065) to receive gas and an exhaust port (Fig. 3 exit from #5 to Fig. 1 #3; ¶0065) to allow the pressurized gas to exit, wherein the blower is provided within one (Fig. 2) of the at least two chambers, 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 (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶0065); wherein the noise-reducing air passage device further comprises at least one ventilation component (Figs. 2-3 #8; ¶0065) 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 (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065); wherein a main path of the gas within the gas passage is an airflow path (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065), wherein the airflow path is configured to have at least two turns (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) and displacements along an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (Figs. 2-3; ¶0065) 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 (e.g. Figs. 2-3 up through #7, down through #8, up through #10), and a total length of the airflow path is greater than 20 cm (inherent based on measures in ¶0032 when taken in the overall context of Figs. 2-3), and wherein a shortest vertical elevation drop of the path along the z-axis is at least 15 mm (¶0032 – length dimension); 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. 2-3 entrance to #8) of the at least one chamber to the intake port of the blower provided within a lower portion (Fig. 2 entrance to #10) of the at least one chamber. The recitation in the preamble of the device being noise-reducing represents an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02). Second channel 8 is read as at least a functional equivalent of the disclosed ventilation component based upon its role in performing acoustic impedance while directing flow between chambers (¶¶0065, 0067).
Gerlach fails to explicitly disclose a total volume of the at least two chambers is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower; 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. 2-3 of Gerlach would have considered it prima facie obvious that blower 5 is shown as occupying less than a third of the interior space of housing 2, but also more than one-eighteenth of that interior space (see also volume discussion in ¶0020). Thus, the illustration in Figs. 2-3 of Gerlach would have obviously suggested the required proportionality of the claim relating the blower to the at least one chamber. Additionally, Gerlach discusses various dimensions for first channel 7 in ¶0032 (e.g. width and depth measures) which define an area of possibly greater than 1000 mm2. And notice then that inlet 6 is itself significantly larger in cross-sectional area than first channel 7 (e.g. Figs. 2-3), though specific measures are only discussed for first channel 7. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing the relative size of nozzle 10 in Fig. 2 would not have expected its circular cross-sectional area to need to be greater than the cross-sectional area defined by the rectangular inlet 6, when further considered in relation to the measures discussed in at least ¶0032.
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 Gerlach a total volume of the at least one chamber is between 3 to 18 times a volume of the blower based upon how the illustration in Figs. 2-3 are obviously suggestive of this proportionality and to have specified in Gerlach 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 the relative sizes of inlet 6 and nozzle 10 illustrated in Figs. 2-3 and in light of the dimensions discussed of first channel 7 in ¶0032, with a recognition that inlet 6 defines a cross-sectional area significantly larger than first channel 7 (e.g. Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 21, Gerlach further teaches the at least two chambers comprise a first chamber (Fig. 2 #4; ¶0064) and a second chamber (Fig. 2 #9; ¶0065), the blower is provided within the first chamber (Fig. 2; ¶0064), and the intake port of the blower communicates with the second chamber (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Gerlach further teaches the second chamber is smaller than the first chamber (Fig. 2; ¶0093).
Regarding claim 23, Gerlach further teaches the ventilation component includes an intake end (Figs. 2-3 top of #8) and an exhaust end (Figs. 2-3 bottom of #8). Gerlach further suggests as obvious a distance between the exhaust end and its opposing inner wall of the casing is at least 3.5 mm (Fig. 2 – height of auxiliary chamber 9 will obviously be at least 3.5 mm). The instant claim does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 24, Gerlach further teaches an outlet pipe (Fig. 1 pipe with #3) is provided at the outlet and communicates with the exhaust port of the blower (¶0065).
Regarding claim 25, Gerlach further teaches the casing forms a part of the PAP machine (Fig. 1; ¶¶0003-0004).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach (U.S. Pub. 2024/0358943) in view of Librett et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0299130).
Regarding claim 8, Gerlach 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 Gerlach 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, Gerlach 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 Gerlach 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..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding the independent claims attention is specifically drawn to: Lindell et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0007912; Fig. 2), Frater et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0018324; Fig. 20) and Yu et al. (CN 117404338 A; Fig. 7).
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