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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 3/3/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 7, 14, 19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-23 are pending in the instant application, wherein claim 8 remains withdrawn in response to restriction/election.
Applicant has amended the claims to render the previous objections thereto moot; the previous objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 19 such that claims 3 and 20 are further limiting; the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(d)/fourth paragraph is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14 [and inferred to extend to claim 19], Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that, “In DiMatteo, the intake port of the blower is parallel to the exhaust port 96…as best seen in the annotated figured below,” where the Examiner notes that the annotated figure has labels 126 and 96 circled.
The Examiner respectfully notes that 126 is not the intake port of the blower of DiMatteo; 126 is the inlet for the noise-reducing passage. The intake port of the blower is air inlet 84. Air inlet 84 is vertically oriented, see e.g. DiMatteo Fig. 7, and thus is perpendicular to the exhaust port 96, which is horizontally oriented, per standard radial blower construction (DiMatteo para [0027]). As such, DiMatteo continues to anticipate the newly added limitation of “wherein the intake port of the blower is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower” as discussed in the maintained/updated art rejections below.
Regarding claim 14 [and inferred to extend to claim 19], Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that, “In DiMatteo, the inlet and the outlet [assumed to be “of the noise-reducing air passage”] are disposed on the same wall surface.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the excerpted figure on page 10 of Remarks clearly shows the opening for 126 on an exterior surface that is closer to the viewer than the exterior surface on which the opening at 118 is located. As such, DiMatteo continues to anticipate the newly added limitation of “wherein the inlet…and the outlet…are provided on different outer surfaces” as discussed in the maintained/updated art rejections below.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and 19, Applicant argues on page 11 of Remarks that “Gerlach is cited for disclosing…a blower having an intake and an exhaust aligned with the outlet 3…the intake and the exhaust of the blower are parallel to each other to be aligned with the outlet.”
The Examiner disagrees with this mischaracterization of Gerlach and the previous rejection. The blower of Gerlach has an intake located on the bottom thereof, above nozzle 10, i.e. a vertically-oriented intake, see Gerlach Fig. 2 and paras [0064-65] per standard radial blower construction; the intake of the blower is not (and was not said to be) “aligned with the outlet 3,” which is horizontally oriented. As such, Gerlach discloses the limitation of “wherein the intake port of the blower is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower” (already present in claim 1, newly added to claims 7, 14 and 19), per standard radial blower construction (Gerlach para [0064]), and the rejections in view of Gerlach are maintained/updated below.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and 19, Applicant argues on page 11 of Remarks that “In Gerlach, the inlet [best understood to be referring to inlet 6] is in a non-horizontal direction.”
The Examiner agrees that the central axis of inlet 6 of Gerlach is not shown on a horizontal plane. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and Gerlach paras [0026-27] expressly teaches that inlet 6/channel 13 can be moved to a different wall than the channel 14 (which is on the bottom wall), such that arriving at the inlet 6 extending horizontally, e.g. from the same side that it is pictured on in Gerlach Fig. 2, i.e. from the left upright wall in Gerlach Fig. 2, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably provide the inlet on a sidewall location/oriented such that it is less likely to suck up any dirt or debris that may be on the surface on which the device is located. i.e. by being horizontally oriented rather than pointed toward the bottom of the device as shown in Gerlach Fig. 2, and particularly on a side of the device such that the air intake continues to be from a side not shared by the outlet 3/not facing the patient in order to slightly muffle any intake noise from the patient’s point of view, i.e. not on the rear of the device so as to avoid the inlet being backed up against a wall, which could impede air intake, and not on the top of the device such that dirt or debris could easily fall into it. Therefore, the rejections in view of Gerlach are updated below. The Examiner also directs attention to the Conclusion section below for additional (previously-cited) references that explicitly disclose the claimed horizontal noise-reduction air passage inlet/outlet arrangement, demonstrating that it was a well-known/common arrangement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, which an artisan would have had no problem incorporating into Gerlach, particularly in light of the explicit teachings of Gerlach para [0026].
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 14 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7-8 already recite wherein the intake port and exhaust port of the blower assembly are perpendicular to each other, such that the newly added sixth- and seventh-to-last lines are redundant and should be deleted for clarity/conciseness
Claim 4, line 2 should read “the same,” as it is understood to be referring to that of the second-to-last line of claim 1
Claim 14, the sixth-to-last line should not have a semi-colon after ‘and’
Claim 17, line 2 should read “the same,” as it is understood to be referring to that of the second-to-last line of claim 14
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and 19 (and thus their dependent claims), the specification as originally filed only discloses and depicts the inlet (31) and outlet (32) of the noise-reducing air passage as being on different horizontal planes, see e.g. Fig. 15, 19, and 22 and e.g. page 7, lines 18-20 and page 14, lines 27-30, of the instant specification. There is no disclosure regarding the inlet (31) and the outlet (32) being on the same horizontal plane as now alternatively claimed in the amended independent claims, such that the scopes of the claims contain new matter. Applicant could address this rejection by deleting “a same horizontal plane or” from the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 14 (and thus their dependent claims), in the fourth- and fifth-to last lines of each claim, the inlet and outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are recited as “provided on different outer surfaces”…of what? Supra to this new limitation, the claims only recite a (single) outer surface (of the air passage), and even if the air passage is assumed to include multiple outer surfaces and that the inlet and outlet are on different ones of those surfaces, it is then unclear what is meant for an inlet/outlet to be on the outer surface of a passage with no association with the inner surface, since the disclosed inlet (31) and outlet (32) each extend from an outer surface to the inner surface of the noise-reducing passage. As best understood, for purposes of examination, the noise-reducing passage comprises walls which comprise the claimed inner surface and the claimed outer surface, and the inlet and outlet of the noise-reducing passage are provided on different walls.
Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims), the third-to-last line recites “the axis of the inlet” and “the axis of the outlet,” wherein it is unclear in the claim if these are the same as the central axes recited in line 6 of claim 1. As best understood, for purposes of examination, they are the same, such that the third-to-last line will be considered to read “the central axis” in both instances.
Claim 7 (and thus its dependent claims) recites the limitations "the axis of the inlet" and “the axis of the outlet” in the third-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be considered to read “an axis” in both instances.
Claim 14 (and thus its dependent claims) recites the limitations "the axis of the inlet" and “the axis of the outlet” in the third-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 14 will be considered to read “an axis” in both instances.
Claim 18, line 2 recites “the outer surface,” wherein it is unclear in the claim to which of the different outer surfaces recited in claim 14 this refers. For purposes of examination, any outer surface will be considered to read.
Claim 19, line 11 recites “an inlet of the noise-reducing air passage”, wherein it is unclear in the claim whether this is the same inlet as recited by line 5 or a different inlet. As best understood, for purposes of examination, they are the same inlet, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 19, line 11, to once again read “the inlet”.
Claim 19 (and thus its dependent claims) recites the limitations "the axis of the inlet" and “the axis of the outlet” in the third-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be considered to read “an axis” in both instances.
Regarding claim 21, lines 1-2 recite “an axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage,” where it is unclear in the claims whether this is the same axis as recited by claim 19, or a different axis. As best understood, for purposes of examination, it is the same axis, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 21, line 1, to once again read “the axis”.
Claim Interpretation
In accordance with page 13, lines 2-4, of the instant specification, the term “approximately” in the claims means ±15%.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 19, “an axis” is any line that divides an element.
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 14 (and thus their dependent claims), no frame of reference is present in the claims that relates “a top view” to any claimed structure, such that looking down at a prior art device in any orientation can be considered a “top view.”
Regarding claims 10, 14, and 22, the port being “connectable” to the outlet by an elastomer is understood to be an intended use configuration, wherein the elastomer is not actually positively recited.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, according to page 16, lines 16-7 of the instant specification, “a closed impeller” is understood to be one where the blades are provided between two plates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiMatteo et al. (US 2007/0048159 A1; hereinafter “DiMatteo”).
Regarding claim 14, DeMatteo discloses a positive airway pressure device (gas delivery system 10) with a noise-reducing air passage (comprising flow path 128 and cavity 102) (Figs. 1-2 and 5; abstract, para [0032]), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0004]), the device comprising:
a casing (external housing 16), configured to enclose internal components (Figs. 1-2);
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising flow path 128 and cavity 102), comprising an inlet (inlet 126), an outlet (at flow outlet seating portion 118, partially defined by cut-out 52) (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of body 18), and an outer surface (of the outer surfaces of body 18), wherein the noise-reducing air passage is configured to transmit the breathable gas (Fig. 5; paras [0036] and [0044]);
a blower assembly (flow generator 14) provided within the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 6), comprising an intake port (air inlet 84) and an exhaust port (flow outlet 96), wherein the blower assembly is configured to pressurize the breathable gas that enters the noise-reducing air passage (Figs. 1-6; para [0044]), wherein the exhaust port of the blower assembly is sealably connectable to the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage by an elastomer (there is nothing that would preclude e.g. an o-ring from being placed around outlet 96 to sealingly connect it to flow outlet seating portion 11/cut-out 52, such that outlet 96 is connectable as claimed),
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing (flow generator housing 70), an impeller (bladed rotor 78), a motor (motor (not shown)), and an internal gas channel, wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side (lower side in Fig. 3), the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3; para [0026]);
wherein the impeller is a closed impeller (Fig. 3),
wherein the intake port of the blower (air inlet 84) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (flow outlet 96) (Fig. 7 shows the vertically aligned inlet 84, which is perpendicular to the horizontally aligned outlet 96, see e.g. Fig. 6); and;
wherein the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (inlet 126) and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage (at 118) are provided on different outer surfaces (Fig. 2, where the opening of inlet 126 is provided on an outer surface that is closer to the viewer than the surface on which the opening of 118 is located);
wherein [a central] axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and [a central] axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes (Fig. 2, the central axis of inlet 126 is provided on a horizontal plane that is lower than the horizontal plane on which the central axis of the outlet at 118 is located).
Regarding claim 16, DiMatteo discloses the device according to claim 14, wherein an axis of the intake port of the blower assembly (the central axis of 84) is perpendicular to a horizontal plane (Figs. 1-3 and 7).
Regarding claim 17, DiMatteo discloses the device according to claim 14, wherein the inlet and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are not on a same horizontal plane (Fig. 2, where 126 is lower than 118/52).
Regarding claim 19, DeMatteo discloses a positive airway pressure device (gas delivery system 10) with a noise-reducing air passage (comprising flow path 128 and cavity 102) (Figs. 1-2 and 5; abstract, para [0032]), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0004]), the device comprising:
a casing (external housing 16), configured to enclose internal components (Figs. 1-2);
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising flow path 128 and cavity 102), comprising an inlet (inlet 126), an outlet (at flow outlet seating portion 118, partially defined by cut-out 52) (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of body 18), and an outer surface (of the outer surfaces of body 18), wherein the noise-reducing air passage is configured to transmit the breathable gas (Fig. 5; paras [0036] and [0044]);
a blower assembly (flow generator 14) provided within the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 6), comprising an intake port (air inlet 84) and an exhaust port (flow outlet 96), wherein the blower assembly is configured to pressurize the breathable gas that enters the noise-reducing air passage (Figs. 1-6; para [0044]), wherein the intake port of the blower assembly (84) and [the] inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (126) are non-concentric (Figs. 2-3), and the exhaust port of the blower assembly (96) and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage (118/52) are concentric (Fig. 1);
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing (flow generator housing 70), an impeller (bladed rotor 78), a motor (motor (not shown)), and an internal gas channel, wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side (lower side in Fig. 3), the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3; para [0026]);
wherein the impeller is a closed impeller (Fig. 3),
wherein the breathable gas is configured to enter the intake port, flow through the blower assembly, and exit the exhaust port tangentially to a rotation of the impeller (Fig. 3; para [0031]),
wherein the intake port of the blower (air inlet 84) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (flow outlet 96) (Fig. 7 shows the vertically aligned inlet 84, which is perpendicular to the horizontally aligned outlet 96, see e.g. Fig. 6); and
wherein [a central] axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and [a central] axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes (Fig. 2, the central axis of inlet 126 is provided on a horizontal plane that is lower than the horizontal plane on which the central axis of the outlet at 118 is located).
Regarding claim 20, DiMatteo discloses the device according to claim 19, wherein the noise-reducing air passage includes a first chamber (e.g. the upper channel in Fig. 5), a second chamber (the lower channel in Fig. 5), and a wall (between the upper and lower channels) to separate the first chamber from the second chamber (Fig. 5; para [0036]), and an opening (outlet 112) is provided on the wall.
Regarding claim 21, DiMatteo discloses the device according to claim 19, wherein [the central] axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (126) is perpendicular to an axis of the intake port of the blower assembly (84) (Figs. 1-3 and 7).
Regarding claim 22, DiMatteo discloses the device according to claim 19, wherein the exhaust port of the blower assembly is sealably connectable to the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage by an elastomer (there is nothing that would preclude e.g. a rubber o-ring from being placed around outlet 96 to sealingly connect it to flow outlet seating portion 11/cut-out 52, such that outlet 96 is connectable as claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach (US 2024/0358943 A1; hereinafter “Gerlach”) in view of Kenyon et al. (US 2011/0017212 A1; hereinafter “Kenyon”), Yu et al. (US 2008/0187437 A1; hereinafter “Yu”), Kenyon et al. (US 2014/0158131 A1; hereinafter “Kenyon 2”) and Velzy et al. (US 2015/0023782 A1; hereinafter “Velzy”).
Regarding claim 1, Gerlach discloses/suggests a positive airway pressure device (ventilator 1) (Fig. 2) with a noise-reducing passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0003], per the standard use of ventilators), the device comprising:
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9) (Fig. 2; paras [0065-67]), comprising an inlet (inlet 6), an outlet (outlet 3), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of chamber 4 OR the upper surface of plate 12), and an outer surface (any of the outer surfaces of ventilator 1), wherein a central axis of the inlet and a central axis of the outlet form an angle (Figs. 1-2; the axes form a 90˚ angle);
a blower assembly (blower 5), comprising an intake port (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) and an exhaust port (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]), wherein a central axis of the intake port and a central axis of the exhaust port are perpendicular to each other (Figs. 2-3; where the intake port is oriented vertically and the exhaust port is oriented horizontally such that the axes form a 90˚ angle, per standard radial blower construction), wherein the breathable gas is configured to enter the intake port, flow through the blower assembly, and exit the exhaust port tangentially to a rotation of an impeller (Figs. 2-3; paras [0064-65], per the standard operation of radial blowers, see also Yu below),
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing, an impeller, a motor, and an internal gas channel (Figs. 2-3; para [0064], where a housing, motor and internal gas channel are inherent components of a radial blower, see also Yu below),
wherein the intake port of the blower (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]) (Figs. 2-3; where the intake port is oriented vertically and the exhaust port is oriented horizontally such that the axes form a 90˚ angle, per standard radial blower construction); and
wherein the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (inlet 6) and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage (outlet 3) are provided on different outer surfaces (inlet 6 is on the bottom surface and outlet 3 is on the front side surface) (Figs. 1-2).
Gerlach is silent regarding a casing, configured to enclose internal components. However, Kenyon demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blower assembly (fan 90) within a noise-reducing air passage (fan cavity 70 within chassis 64) (Figs. 4 and 11-13; para [0130]) within a casing (flow generator case comprising cases 60,61) (Fig. 5), configured to enclose internal components (Fig. 5; paras [0125-128], [0136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gerlach to include a casing, configured to enclose internal components as taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of an outer shell for containing the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach as well as other operational components for the ventilator (e.g. controller(s), power supply, etc.) and/or in order to provide the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach in conjunction with a humidifier in a known, compact/conjoined fashion (Kenyon Fig. 1).
Modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor. However, Yu demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a radial blower (Figs. 1-3) for use in a respiratory device (paras [0005] and [0019]) to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3, where the internal gas chamber extends between the impeller and the intake opening 31, see dimension H, and also extends between the impeller and the motor/bottom of the blower housing, see the internal spaces below the impeller in Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor as taught by Yu, in order to utilize a radial blower configuration known to reduce noise to provide the predictable result a quieter ventilator (Yu paras [0005-7]).
While Gerlach teaches selecting a size of the noise-reducing air passage (depending on a size of the chamber, para [0027]), and Gerlach Fig. 2 suggests/teaches that the volume of chambers 4/9 is much larger than the volume of the blower assembly and that the blower assembly is sufficiently spaced from the inner surfaces of chamber 4 (Fig. 2; para [0070]), modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein a volume ratio of the noise-reducing air passage to the blower assembly is between 3 and 18, and a distance between the blower assembly and the inner surface of the noise-reducing air passage is greater than or equal to 3 mm when the blower assembly is secured within the noise-reducing air passage. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.05. Kenyon 2 (Fig. 98) demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape/size of a noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 606(1) and 606(2)) depending on the size of the blower (paras [0238-245]), where a larger volume provides more muffling but a smaller volume allows for a smaller casing, and Velzy demonstrates that it was known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a distance between the blower assembly and the inner surface of the noise-reducing air passage to be greater than or equal to 3 mm when the blower assembly is secured within the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 16, 19 and 87; paras [0149], [0208] and [0230]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative volumes and spacing taught by Gerlach to arrive within the instant ranges through routine experimentation as taught by Kenyon 2 and within the ranges taught by Velzy, in order to provide sufficient noise muffling while tailoring the overall size of the device (Kenyon paras [0238-245]) and to prevent turbulent airflow/provide desired air flow and acoustics (Velzy paras [0019] and [0230]; Gerlach para [0027]).
While Gerlach paras [0026-27] expressly teaches that inlet 6/channel 13 can be moved to a different wall than the channel 14, i.e. moved off the bottom wall, modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein the axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and the axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and arriving at the inlet 6 extending horizontally from the same side that it is pictured on in Gerlach Fig. 2, i.e. from the left upright wall in Gerlach Fig. 2, see modified below, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably provide the inlet on a sidewall location on a side of the device such that the air intake continues to be from a side not shared by the outlet 3/not facing the patient in order to slightly muffle any intake noise from the patient’s point of view (and not on the rear of the device so as to avoid the inlet being backed up against a wall, and not on the top of the device where debris/objects/dust could drop into the inlet, any of which could impede air intake), and where it is less likely to suck up any dirt or debris that may be on the surface on which the device is located by being horizontally oriented and (well-) spaced from the bottom rather than pointed toward the bottom of the device as shown in Gerlach Fig. 2. See also Velzy e.g. Fig. 9, which teaches a noise-reduction air passage inlet (27) and outlet (29) whose central axes form an angle and which are on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes, further demonstrating that the claimed arrangement was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and readily achieved by/familiar to an artisan.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein modified Gerlach teaches/suggests wherein, in a top view, the intake port of the blower assembly is provided at an approximately central position of the noise-reducing air passage (Gerlach Fig. 3, where blower 5 is positioned generally in the middle of the device, such that an approximately central position is reasonably suggested/would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to weight-balance the device, and see also Velzy e.g. Fig. 16, 19 and 87 and paras [0149], [0208] and [0230], which reinforces that it was well known/would have been obvious to an artisan in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evenly space, i.e. centrally locate in a top view/horizontally (and vertically), a blower assembly within a housing, to further predictably provide balanced air flow paths and prevent turbulent airflow per Velzy paras [0019] and [0230]).
Regarding claim 3, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein Gerlach further discloses wherein the noise-reducing air passage comprises a first chamber (chamber 4) (Fig. 2), a second chamber (chamber 9) (Fig. 2), and a wall (plate 12) to separate the first chamber from the second chamber (Fig. 2), and an opening is provided on the wall (the opening in plate 12 at the bottom of nozzle 10 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the inlet (6) and the outlet (3) of the noise-reducing air passage are not on a same horizontal plane (see Gerlach Fig. 2 modified above), where spacing the inlet near the top of the device, i.e. above the outlet 3, would predictably space the inlet well away from the surface on which the device is positioned to avoid intaking dust and/or debris therefrom.
Regarding claim 5, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein modified Gerlach suggests wherein an area of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage is 0.7 to 1.5 times an area of the exhaust port of the blower assembly (Gerlach Figs. 1&3; paras [0063-65], where the clear/obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention inference is that the outlet of the blower and outlet 3 are generally the same size so that air is passed unimpeded from the blower to the outlet).
Regarding claim 6, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the device further comprises a bracket (holder 15) and the blower assembly is secured within the noise-reducing air passage by the bracket (Gerlach Fig. 2; para [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Gerlach discloses/suggests a positive airway pressure device (ventilator 1) (Fig. 2) with a noise-reducing passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0003], per the standard use of ventilators), the device comprising:
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9) (Fig. 2; para [0065]), comprising an inlet (inlet 6), an outlet (outlet 3), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of chamber 4 OR the upper surface of plate 12), and an outer surface (any of the outer surfaces of ventilator 1), wherein the noise-reducing air passage is configured to transmit the breathable gas (para [0065]);
a blower assembly (blower 5) comprising an intake port (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) and an exhaust port (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]), wherein the blower assembly is configured to pressurize the breathable gas that enters the noise-reducing air passage (paras [0013-14]),
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing, an impeller, a motor, and an internal gas channel (Figs. 2-3; para [0014], where a housing, motor and internal gas channel are inherent components of a radial blower, see also Yu below);
wherein the device further comprises a bracket (holder 15), and the blower assembly is secured to the noise-reducing air passage at an approximately central position of the noise-reducing air passage in a vertical direction by the bracket (Figs. 2 and 4; where blower 5 is suspended generally in the middle of the device, such that an approximately central position in all directions, including vertical as perpendicular to horizontal discussed below, is reasonably suggested/would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to weight-balance the device, and see also Velzy e.g. Fig. 16, 19 and 87 and paras [0149], [0208] and [0230], which reinforces that it was well known/would have been obvious to an artisan in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evenly space, i.e. centrally locate vertically (and in a top view/horizontally), a blower assembly within a housing, to further predictably provide balanced air flow paths and prevent turbulent airflow per Velzy paras [0019] and [0230]), and wherein the intake port of the blower assembly (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2) and the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (inlet 6) are non-concentric (Fig. 2, and also Fig. 2 modified, above), and the exhaust port of the blower assembly and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are concentric (Figs. 1&3; paras [0063-65], where the clear/obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention inference is that the outlet of the blower and outlet 3 are concentrically aligned so that air is passed unimpeded from the blower to the outlet);
wherein the intake port of the blower (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]) (Figs. 2-3; where the intake port is oriented vertically and the exhaust port is oriented horizontally such that the axes form a 90˚ angle, per standard radial blower construction).
Gerlach is silent regarding a casing, configured to enclose internal components. However, Kenyon demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blower assembly (fan 90) within a noise-reducing air passage (fan cavity 70 within chassis 64) (Figs. 4 and 11-13; para [0130]) within a casing (flow generator case comprising cases 60,61) (Fig. 5), configured to enclose internal components (Fig. 5; paras [0125-128], [0136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gerlach to include a casing, configured to enclose internal components as taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of an outer shell for containing the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach as well as other operational components for the ventilator (e.g. controller(s), power supply, etc.) and/or in order to provide the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach in conjunction with a humidifier in a known, compact/conjoined fashion (Kenyon Fig. 1).
Modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor. However, Yu demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a radial blower (Figs. 1-3) for use in a respiratory device (paras [0005] and [0019]) to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3, where the internal gas chamber extends between the impeller and the intake opening 31, see dimension H, and also extends between the impeller and the motor/bottom of the blower housing, see the internal spaces below the impeller in Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor as taught by Yu, in order to utilize a radial blower configuration known to reduce noise to provide the predictable result a quieter ventilator (Yu paras [0005-7]).
While Gerlach teaches selecting a size of the noise-reducing air passage (depending on a size of the chamber, para [0027]), and Gerlach suggests/teaches that the blower assembly is sufficiently spaced from the inner surfaces of chamber 4 (Fig. 2; para [0070]), modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein a height of the noise-reducing air passage differs from a height of the blower assembly by at least 5 mm. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.05. Kenyon 2 (Fig. 98) demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape/size of a noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 606(1) and 606(2)) depending on the size of the blower (paras [0238-245]), where a larger volume/height provides more muffling but a smaller volume/height allows for a smaller casing, and Velzy demonstrates that it was known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a height of the noise-reducing air passage differs from a height of the blower assembly by at least 5 mm (Fig. 16, 19 and 87; paras [0149], [0208] and [0230]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative heights taught by Gerlach to arrive within the instant range through routine experimentation as taught by Kenyon 2 and within the ranges taught by Velzy, in order to provide sufficient noise muffling while minimizing the overall size of the device (Kenyon paras [0238-245]) and to prevent turbulent airflow/provide desired air flow and acoustics (Velzy paras [0019] and [0230]; Gerlach para [0027]).
While Gerlach paras [0026-27] expressly teaches that inlet 6/channel 13 can be moved to a different wall than the channel 14, i.e. moved off the bottom wall, modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein the axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and the axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and arriving at the inlet 6 extending horizontally from the same side that it is pictured on in Gerlach Fig. 2, i.e. from the left upright wall in Gerlach Fig. 2, see modified above, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably provide the inlet on a sidewall location on a side of the device such that the air intake continues to be from a side not shared by the outlet 3/not facing the patient in order to slightly muffle any intake noise from the patient’s point of view (and not on the rear of the device so as to avoid the inlet being backed up against a wall, and not on the top of the device where debris/objects/dust could drop into the inlet, any of which could impede air intake), and where it is less likely to suck up any dirt or debris that may be on the surface on which the device is located by being horizontally oriented and (well-) spaced from the bottom rather than pointed toward the bottom of the device as shown in Gerlach Fig. 2. See also Velzy e.g. Fig. 9, which teaches a noise-reduction air passage inlet (27) and outlet (29) whose central axes form an angle and which are on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes, further demonstrating that the claimed arrangement was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and readily achieved by/familiar to an artisan.
Regarding claim 9, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein an outlet pipe (the pipe surrounding outlet 3) is provided at the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage (Gerlach Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the exhaust port of the blower assembly is sealingly connectable to the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage by an elastomer (Gerlach Figs. 1 and 3), because there is nothing that would prevent the exhaust port of the blower assembly of Gerlach from being sealingly connected to outlet 3, and the blower outlet structure depicted in Gerlach 3 resembles well-known elastomer connectors that serve the claimed purpose, see e.g. Kenyon Fig. 5, rubber coupling 108, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include an elastomer sealing member as suggested by Gerlach and taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of a coupling member that provides a sealed connection to outlet 3 to minimize pressure loss while resisting transmittance of vibration of the fan (Kenyon paras [0149-150]).
Regarding claim 11, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the bracket (15) has at least two different wall thicknesses (Gerlach Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 11, but modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein a contact area between the bracket and the blower assembly is at least 220 mm2. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.05. Moreover, Kenyon 2 and Velzy further teach that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a blower holder (suspension system 690) (Kenyon 2 Fig. 98)/(suspension device 40) (Velzy Figs. 9, 15 and 19) to substantially encase/contact on all sides a blower assembly (blower 610)/(blower 30), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein a contact area between the bracket and the blower assembly is at least 220 mm2 through routine experimentation and as suggested by Kenyon 2 and Velzy, in order to utilize a sufficiently-sized blower to provide the desired amount of pressure and for said blower to be encased by the bracket in order to ensure vibration isolation as well as impact resistance (Kenyon 2 para [0260]; Velzy paras [0091], [0148-151] and [0155-156]).
Regarding claim 13, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu, Kenyon 2 and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein at least part of the bracket (15) is in contact with the inner wall of the noise-reducing air passage (Gerlach Fig. 2; para [0070]).
Regarding claim 18, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Velzy and Yu teaches the device according to claim 14 (see below), wherein Gerlach further teaches wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the noise-reducing air passage include plastic (para [0013]), but Gerlach does not explicitly recite the plastic being one of the following materials: polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate-1,4-cyclohexane dimethanol ester, polyamide, or polyetheretherketone. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Kenyon 2 demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that polypropylene is an acoustically dampened plastic (para [0146]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein the plastic of the walls is polypropylene as taught by Kenyon 2, in order to provide the predictable result of a quieter ventilator (Kenyon para [0146]).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy.
Regarding claim 14, Gerlach discloses/suggests a positive airway pressure device (ventilator 1) (Fig. 2) with a noise-reducing passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0003], per the standard use of ventilators), the device comprising:
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), comprising an inlet (inlet 6), an outlet (outlet 3), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of chamber 4 OR the upper surface of plate 12), and an outer surface (any of the outer surfaces of ventilator 1), wherein the noise-reducing air passage is configured to transmit the breathable gas (para [0065]);
a blower assembly (blower 5) provided within the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 2), comprising an intake port (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) and an exhaust port (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]), wherein the blower assembly is configured to pressurize the breathable gas that enters the noise-reducing air passage (paras [0013-14]), wherein the exhaust port of the blower assembly is sealably connectable to the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage by an elastomer (Gerlach Figs. 1 and 3), because there is nothing that would prevent the exhaust port of the blower assembly of Gerlach from being sealingly connected to outlet 3 [also the blower outlet structure depicted in Gerlach 3 resembles well-known elastomer connectors that serve the claimed purpose, see e.g. Kenyon Fig. 5, rubber coupling 108, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Gerlach to include an elastomer sealing member as suggested by Gerlach and taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of a coupling member that provides a sealed connection to outlet 3 to minimize pressure loss while resisting transmittance of vibration of the fan (Kenyon paras [0149-150])],
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing, an impeller, a motor, and an internal gas channel (Figs. 2-3; para [0014], where a housing, motor and internal gas channel are inherent components of a radial blower, see also Yu below);
wherein the intake port of the blower (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]) (Figs. 2-3; where the intake port is oriented vertically and the exhaust port is oriented horizontally such that the axes form a 90˚ angle, per standard radial blower construction); and
wherein the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage (inlet 6) and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage (outlet 3) are provided on different outer surfaces (inlet 6 is on the bottom surface and outlet 3 is on the front side surface) (Figs. 1-2).
Gerlach is silent regarding a casing, configured to enclose internal components. However, Kenyon demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blower assembly (fan 90) within a noise-reducing air passage (fan cavity 70 within chassis 64) (Figs. 4 and 11-13; para [0130]) within a casing (flow generator case comprising cases 60,61) (Fig. 5), configured to enclose internal components (Fig. 5; paras [0125-128], [0136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gerlach to include a casing, configured to enclose internal components as taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of an outer shell for containing the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach as well as other operational components for the ventilator (e.g. controller(s), power supply, etc.) and/or in order to provide the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach in conjunction with a humidifier in a known, compact/conjoined fashion (Kenyon Fig. 1).
Gerlach is silent regarding wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor; and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller. However, Yu demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a radial blower (Figs. 1-3) for use in a respiratory device (paras [0005] and [0019]) to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3, where the internal gas chamber extends between the impeller and the intake opening 31, see dimension H, and also extends between the impeller and the motor/bottom of the blower housing, see the internal spaces below the impeller in Fig. 3); and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller (Yu Figs. 2-3; see also Kenyon Fig. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller as taught by Yu, in order to utilize a radial blower configuration known to reduce noise to provide the predictable result a quieter ventilator (Yu paras [0005-7]).
While Gerlach paras [0026-27] expressly teaches that inlet 6/channel 13 can be moved to a different wall than the channel 14, i.e. moved off the bottom wall, modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein the axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and the axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and arriving at the inlet 6 extending horizontally from the same side that it is pictured on in Gerlach Fig. 2, i.e. from the left upright wall in Gerlach Fig. 2, see modified above, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably provide the inlet on a sidewall location on a side of the device such that the air intake continues to be from a side not shared by the outlet 3/not facing the patient in order to slightly muffle any intake noise from the patient’s point of view (and not on the rear of the device so as to avoid the inlet being backed up against a wall, and not on the top of the device where debris/objects/dust could drop into the inlet, any of which could impede air intake), and where it is less likely to suck up any dirt or debris that may be on the surface on which the device is located by being horizontally oriented and (well-) spaced from the bottom rather than pointed toward the bottom of the device as shown in Gerlach Fig. 2. See also Velzy e.g. Fig. 9, which teaches a noise-reduction air passage inlet (27) and outlet (29) whose central axes form an angle and which are on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes, further demonstrating that the claimed arrangement was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and readily achieved by/familiar to an artisan.
Regarding claim 15, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 14, wherein Yu and Kenyon further suggest to modified Gerlach to include wherein the impeller has a central opening (Yu Fig. 2; Kenyon Fig. 13), and the intake port of the blower assembly is greater than or equal to the central opening of the impeller (Yu Fig. 3; Kenyon Fig. 3), in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that air enters the blower unimpeded by the impeller.
Regarding claim 16, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 14, wherein modified Gerlach further teaches wherein an axis of the intake port of the blower assembly is perpendicular to a horizontal plane (Fig. 2; where the intake port is oriented vertically, which is perpendicular to horizontal, per standard radial blower construction).
Regarding claim 17, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 14, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the inlet (6) and the outlet (3) of the noise-reducing air passage are not on a same horizontal plane (see Gerlach Fig. 2 modified above), where spacing the inlet near the top of the device, i.e. above the outlet 3, would predictably space the inlet well away from the surface on which the device is positioned to avoid intaking dust and/or debris therefrom.
Regarding claim 19, Gerlach discloses/suggests a positive airway pressure device (ventilator 1) (Fig. 2) with a noise-reducing passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), configured to deliver breathable gas into a patient's airway for treatment of respiratory-related diseases (para [0003], per the standard use of ventilators), the device comprising:
the noise-reducing air passage (comprising chambers 4 and 9), comprising an inlet (inlet 6), an outlet (outlet 3), an inner surface (any of the inner surfaces of chamber 4 OR the upper surface of plate 12), and an outer surface (any of the outer surfaces of ventilator 1), wherein the noise-reducing air passage is configured to transmit the breathable gas (para [0065]);
a blower assembly (blower 5), provided within the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 2), comprising an intake port (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) and an exhaust port (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]), wherein the blower assembly is configured to pressurize the breathable gas that enters the noise-reducing air passage (paras [0013-14]),wherein the blower assembly is secured inside the noise-reducing air passage (Fig. 2), wherein the intake port of the blower assembly and [the] inlet of the noise-reducing air passage are non-concentric (Fig. 2), and the exhaust port of the blower assembly and the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are concentric (Figs. 1&3; paras [0063-65], where the clear/obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention inference is that the outlet of the blower and outlet 3 are concentrically aligned so that air is passed unimpeded from the blower to the outlet);
wherein the blower assembly includes a blower housing, an impeller, a motor, and an internal gas channel (Figs. 2-3; para [0014], where a housing, motor and internal gas channel are inherent components of a radial blower, see also Yu below);
wherein the breathable gas is configured to enter through the intake port, flow through the blower assembly and exit the exhaust port tangentially to a rotation of the impeller (Figs. 2-3; para [0065] in view of para [0014], per the standard operation of radial blowers, see also Yu below);
wherein the intake port of the blower (above nozzle 10 in Fig. 2; para [0065]) is perpendicular to the exhaust port of the blower (aligned with outlet 3 in Figs. 1&3; para [0065]) (Figs. 2-3; where the intake port is oriented vertically and the exhaust port is oriented horizontally such that the axes form a 90˚ angle, per standard radial blower construction).
Gerlach is silent regarding a casing, configured to enclose internal components. However, Kenyon demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory device art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blower assembly (fan 90) within a noise-reducing air passage (fan cavity 70 within chassis 64) (Figs. 4 and 11-13; para [0130]) within a casing (flow generator case comprising cases 60,61) (Fig. 5), configured to enclose internal components (Fig. 5; paras [0125-128], [0136]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gerlach to include a casing, configured to enclose internal components as taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of an outer shell for containing the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach as well as other operational components for the ventilator (e.g. controller(s), power supply, etc.) and/or in order to provide the blower assembly within a noise-reducing air passage of Gerlach in conjunction with a humidifier in a known, compact/conjoined fashion (Kenyon Fig. 1).
Gerlach is silent regarding wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor; and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller. However, Yu demonstrates that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a radial blower (Figs. 1-3) for use in a respiratory device (paras [0005] and [0019]) to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor (Fig. 3, where the internal gas chamber extends between the impeller and the intake opening 31, see dimension H, and also extends between the impeller and the motor/bottom of the blower housing, see the internal spaces below the impeller in Fig. 3); and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller (Yu Figs. 2-3; see also Kenyon Fig. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include wherein at least part of the internal gas channel of the blower assembly is located on a first side, the first side being the side on which the impeller faces the motor and wherein the impeller is a closed impeller as taught by Yu, in order to utilize a radial blower configuration known to reduce noise to provide the predictable result a quieter ventilator (Yu paras [0005-7]).
While Gerlach paras [0026-27] expressly teaches that inlet 6/channel 13 can be moved to a different wall than the channel 14, i.e. moved off the bottom wall, modified Gerlach is silent regarding wherein the axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage and the axis of the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage are provided on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, and arriving at the inlet 6 extending horizontally from the same side that it is pictured on in Gerlach Fig. 2, i.e. from the left upright wall in Gerlach Fig. 2, see modified above, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably provide the inlet on a sidewall location on a side of the device such that the air intake continues to be from a side not shared by the outlet 3/not facing the patient in order to slightly muffle any intake noise from the patient’s point of view (and not on the rear of the device so as to avoid the inlet being backed up against a wall, and not on the top of the device where debris/objects/dust could drop into the inlet, any of which could impede air intake), and where it is less likely to suck up any dirt or debris that may be on the surface on which the device is located by being horizontally oriented and (well-) spaced from the bottom rather than pointed toward the bottom of the device as shown in Gerlach Fig. 2. See also Velzy e.g. Fig. 9, which teaches a noise-reduction air passage inlet (27) and outlet (29) whose central axes form an angle and which are on a same horizontal plane or different horizontal planes, further demonstrating that the claimed arrangement was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and readily achieved by/familiar to an artisan.
Regarding claim 20, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein Gerlach further discloses wherein the noise-reducing air passage comprises a first chamber (chamber 4) (Fig. 2), a second chamber (chamber 9) (Fig. 2), and a wall (plate 12) to separate the first chamber from the second chamber (Fig. 2), and an opening is provided on the wall (the opening in plate 12 at the bottom of nozzle 10 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein [the] axis of the inlet of the noise-reducing air passage is perpendicular to an axis of the intake port of the blower assembly (Gerlach Fig. 2 modified above, where the inlet to the noise-reducing air passage is oriented horizontally and the intake of the blower assembly is oriented vertically).
Regarding claim 22, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein modified Gerlach teaches wherein the exhaust port of the blower assembly is sealingly connectable to the outlet of the noise-reducing air passage by an elastomer (Gerlach Figs. 1 and 3), because there is nothing that would prevent the exhaust port of the blower assembly of Gerlach from being sealingly connected to outlet 3, and the blower outlet structure depicted in Gerlach 3 resembles well-known elastomer connectors that serve the claimed purpose, see e.g. Kenyon Fig. 5, rubber coupling 108, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Gerlach to include an elastomer sealing member as suggested by Gerlach and taught by Kenyon, in order to provide the predictable result of a coupling member that provides a sealed connection to outlet 3 to minimize pressure loss while resisting transmittance of vibration of the fan (Kenyon paras [0149-150]).
Regarding claim 23, Gerlach in view of Kenyon, Yu and Velzy teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein Yu and Kenyon further suggest to modified Gerlach to include wherein the impeller has a central opening (Yu Fig. 2; Kenyon Fig. 13), and the intake port of the blower assembly is greater than or equal to the central opening of the impeller (Yu Fig. 3; Kenyon Fig. 3), in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that air enters the blower unimpeded by the impeller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner notes that several other previously-cited references could be used as base references to reject the claims under 35 USC 103 using the same teaching references as above regarding sizing and blower selection, e.g. Higashiyama et al. (WO 2018/110457 A1); Grasmuck (US 2014/0014109 A1); Wu et al. (CN 1180015252 A); Wu et al. (CN 117145809 A); Zhao et al. (CN 108543180 A); Zhu et al. (CN 111561484 A); particularly in view of known casings, e.g. previously-cited Li et al. (CN 112870505 A).
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 KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights