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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-4 are black and white photographs. The photographs include light and dark shading making the details of the invention difficult to ascertain. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent application. Drawings should be used when the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by drawing. See MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains term that is implied (i.e., the term “Disclosed herein” in line 1 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Presently, no limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 112(f).
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 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “with waste heat from the internal battery” (line 4) is unclear if the waste heat is referring to a new waste heat of the internal battery or “waste heat” caused by charging the internal battery being claimed in claim 20, line 3.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Martin (2010/0132708) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Martin (2010/0132708) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device (10 in figs. 6-9 and paragraphs 0059-0077 and the mask connected to 10, see paragraph 0051, Martin discloses in the abstract and paragraphs 0002-0021 that the device is a positive airway pressure (PAP), and further discloses that “Positive Airway Pressure (PAP), including Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)”) comprising: a humidifier (10) comprising a water chamber (the cavity portion that holds water 68, see paragraphs 0069-0070); a heater (102, fig. 9, paragraphs 0070-0070) configured to heat the water chamber; an inlet conduit (conduit formed by the walls of 104, 145 and 136 and the structure allowing air to flow from 95 to blower motor 98, see the annotated-Martin fig. 9 above, paragraphs 0063-0071) configured to direct an air mixture into the water chamber (see fig. 9, paragraphs 0069-0071); and a compressor (blower assembly 98, fig. 9, paragraphs 0069-0070 and 0077, a blower is a low pressure compressor) configured to move the air mixture through the inlet conduit (fig. 9 and paragraphs 0069-0070), wherein the compressor and the inlet conduit are positioned relative to one another such that waste heat from the compressor is configured to pre-heat the air mixture in the inlet conduit (see paragraphs 0060 and 0069-0071, as shown and disclosed by Martin, the motor of the blower assembly 98 generate heat, which is used to heat 104 which would then heat the water 68 within the tub, furthermore, as shown, the air 148 flows over the heated motor 98 as the air mixture travels through 104 to 134/136/108, therefore, the waste heat from the compressor 98 would pre-heat the air mixture in the inlet conduit).
However, if there is any doubt that the blower of Martin can be treated as a compressor.
Bremner teaches that the flow generator can be a blower or a compressor (see paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower of Martin to be a compressor as taught by Bremner for the purpose of providing an alternative flow generator that would be capable of moving the air mixture from the inlet to an outlet.
Regarding claim 2, Martin or the modified Martin discloses a housing, wherein at least a portion of the inlet conduit is disposed in an internal volume of the housing (housing is formed by 146 and bottom portion of 96 of Martin, see paragraphs 0070-0071 of Martin, see the annotated-Martin fig. 9 above, as shown, the inlet conduit is disposed in an internal volume of the housing).
Regarding claim 3, Martin or the modified Martin discloses that the compressor (98 of Martin) is disposed in the internal volume of the housing (see the annotated-Martin fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 4, Martin or the modified Martin discloses that a printed circuit board (PCB) is disposed in the internal volume of the housing (see printed circuit board of controller 130 in fig. 9 and paragraph 0077 of Martin).
Regarding claim 5, Martin or the modified Martin discloses that the inlet conduit is adjacent to the compressor (98 of Martin, see the annotated-Martin fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 6, Martin or the modified Martin discloses a battery, wherein the battery is configured to power the CPAP device (see paragraphs 0042 and 0060 of Martin, Martin discloses that the PAP device 10 is being powered by a battery).
Regarding claim 16, Martin discloses a method for operating a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device (10 in figs. 6-9 and paragraphs 0059-0077 and the mask connected to 10, see paragraph 0051, Martin discloses in the abstract and paragraphs 0002-0021 that the device is a positive airway pressure (PAP), and further discloses that “Positive Airway Pressure (PAP), including Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)”) comprising: directing, with a compressor (blower assembly 98, fig. 9, paragraphs 0069-0070 and 0077, a blower is a low pressure compressor), an air mixture through an inlet conduit (conduit formed by the walls of 104, 145 and 136 and the structure allowing air to flow from 95 to blower motor 98, see the annotated-Martin fig. 9 above, paragraphs 0063-0071) to a water chamber (the cavity portion that holds water 68, see paragraphs 0069-0070); pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet conduit with waste heat from the compressor (see paragraphs 0060 and 0069-0071, as shown and disclosed by Martin, the motor of the blower assembly 98 generate heat, which is used to heat 104 which would then heat the water 68 within the tub, furthermore, as shown, the air 148 flows over the heated motor 98 as the air mixture travels through 104 to 134/136/108, therefore, the waste heat from the compressor 98 would pre-heat the air mixture in the inlet conduit); humidifying and heating the air mixture in the water chamber; and directing the humidified and heated air mixture through an inspiratory tube to a patient respiratory interface (mask, see paragraphs 0051 and 0057 of Martin)(see paragraph 0071 of Martin, the outlet tube 142 is connected with a tube that then would connect to the mask to provide the air mixture to the patient).
However, if there is any doubt that the blower of Martin can be treated as a compressor.
Bremner teaches that the flow generator can be a blower or a compressor (see paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower of Martin to be a compressor as taught by Bremner for the purpose of providing an alternative flow generator that would be capable of moving the air mixture from the inlet to an outlet.
Regarding claim 18, Martin or the modified Martin discloses heating the water chamber with a heater (102, fig. 9, paragraphs 0070-0070 of Martin).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2010/0132708) or alternatively, Martin (2010/0132708) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babbage (2023/0014759).
Regarding claim 7, Martin or the modified Martin discloses an inspiratory tube configured to lead the air mixture from the water chamber to a patient respiratory interface (mask, see paragraphs 0051 and 0057 of Martin)(see paragraph 0071 of Martin, the outlet tube 142 is connected with a tube that then would connect to the mask to provide the air mixture to the patient), but fails to disclose an expiratory tube configured to lead the air mixture from the patient respiratory interface to the pressure accumulator.
However, Babbage teaches an expiratory tube configured to lead an air mixture from the patient respiratory interface to a pressure accumulator (see accumulator 195 and expiratory tube 190, fig. 1, paragraph 0247).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of Martin or the modified Martin to have the expiratory tube and the accumulator as taught by Babbage for the purpose of providing a well-known bubble CPAP respiratory therapy system that would allow adjustment of pressure via the depth of the immersion of the expiratory conduit within the accumulator (see paragraph 0247 of Babbage).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Martin discloses that the patient respiratory interface can be a mask (paragraphs 0003, 0051, and 0057 of Martin), but fails to disclose that the patient respiratory interface comprises a nasal interface.
However, Babbage teaches a patient respiratory interface can be a mask or a nasal interface (paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient respiratory interface of the modified Martin to be a nasal interface as taught by Babbage for the purpose of providing an alternative patient interface that would provide the predictable result of communicating therapeutic air mixture to the patient.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Virr (2011/0155132) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Virr (2011/0155132) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515).
PNG
media_image2.png
718
923
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Virr discloses continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device (10, fig. 1, paragraphs 0003 and 0100) comprising: a housing (housing formed by housing of 12 and housing 18 and 54 of 14, see figs. 1-3) having an internal volume (internal volume is defined as being within housing of 12, see fig. 1, paragraphs 0100-0105); a humidifier (14, figs. 1-3) comprising a water chamber (tub 20 or the space formed by tub 20, see figs. 10-30, paragraphs 0104-0127); a compartment configured to receive at least a portion of the water chamber (compartment is formed within 14 where 20 is positioned within, see the annotated-Virr fig. 18 above), wherein the compartment is positioned external to the internal volume of the housing (see fig. 1 with fig. 18, the compartment is defined within 14, which is external to the internal volume formed by 12); a heater (36, fig. 18, paragraphs 0106 and 0109) configured to heat the water chamber, wherein at least a portion of the heater is disposed within the compartment (see fig. 18, as shown, the heater is disposed within the compartment); a compressor (the blower positioned within flow generator/blower 12, see paragraph 0100 and fig. 1, the blower is a type of low pressure compressor) configured to move an air mixture to the water chamber (see paragraph 0117, Virr discloses that the flow generator generates a flow of air through the inlet 22 of the humidifier 14), wherein at least a portion of the compressor is disposed in the internal volume of the housing (see paragraphs 0100, 0103, 0114-0017 and fig. 1, Virr discloses that 12 is the blower or flow generator, which would comprise a blower that generate a flow of air through the inlet 22, see paragraph 0117); and an inspiratory tube configured to lead the air mixture from the water chamber to a patient respiratory interface (see paragraph 0101, Virr discloses that the tub 20 includes outlet 88 for the humidified flow of breathable gas to a tube configured to deliver the humidified flow to a patient interface, e.g. a mask).
However, if there is any doubt that the blower of Virr can be treated as a compressor.
Bremner teaches that the flow generator can be a blower or a compressor (see paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower of Virr to be a compressor as taught by Bremner for the purpose of providing an alternative flow generator that would be capable of moving the air mixture from the inlet to an outlet.
Regarding claim 10, Virr or the modified Virr discloses that the water chamber positioned in the compartment, an exterior surface of the water chamber is spaced from a wall of the compartment to define an insulating air gap disposed between the water chamber and the wall of the compartment (see the annotated-Virr fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 11, Virr or the modified Virr discloses that with the water chamber positioned in the compartment, the wall extends at least halfway up a height of the water chamber (see the annotated-Virr fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 12, Virr or the modified Virr discloses an insulator disposed beneath the heater (see insulator 38 positioned under heater 36 in figs. 4 and 18 of Virr, paragraph 0109 of Virr).
Regarding claim 13, Virr or the modified Virr discloses that an inlet conduit configured to direct an air mixture into the water chamber, wherein at least a portion of the inlet conduit is dispose in the internal volume of the housing (see inlet 22, paragraphs 0107-0108 and 0117 of Virr, see fig. 2 relative to fig. 1, 22 would be inserted and positioned within an internal volume of the housing of 12, alternatively, the end of the blower within 12 that connects to 22 can be considered as an inlet, which would be within an interior of the housing of 12 since the blower would be within 12).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virr (2011/0155132) or alternatively, Virr (2011/0155132) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Burton (6,349,724).
Regarding claim 14, Virr or the modified Virr fails to disclose a battery is configured to power the CPAP device.
However, Burton teaches a battery is configured to power a device (see battery 150, fig. 1, col 3, lines 27-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower of Virr or the modified Virr to have the battery and have the CPAP device of Virr or the modified Virr be battery operated as taught by Burton for the purpose of providing portability (see col 3, lines 27-46 of Burton).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virr (2011/0155132) or alternatively, Virr (2011/0155132) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Babbage (2023/0014759).
Regarding claim 15, Virr or the modified Virr fails to disclose an expiratory tube configured to lead the air mixture from the patient respiratory interface to a pressure accumulator.
However, Babbage teaches an expiratory tube configured to lead an air mixture from the patient respiratory interface to a pressure accumulator (see accumulator 195 and expiratory tube 190, fig. 1, paragraph 0247).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of Virr or the modified Virr to have the expiratory tube and the accumulator as taught by Babbage for the purpose of providing a well-known bubble CPAP respiratory therapy system that would allow adjustment of pressure via the depth of the immersion of the expiratory conduit within the accumulator (see paragraph 0247 of Babbage).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2010/0132708) or alternatively, Martin (2010/0132708) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 16 above, and alternatively in view of Gibson (2016/0354555).
Regarding claim 17, Martin or the modified Martin discloses pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet with waste heat from a printed circuit board (PCB) (see printed circuit board of controller 130 in fig. 9 and paragraph 0077 of Martin, as shown in fig. 9, the air entering inlet 95 would interact with the printed circuit board and the compressor 98, therefore, whatever waste heat generated by the PCB would pre-heat the air mixture in the inlet to a certain degree, see figs. 9-10C of Martin for reference). However, if there is any doubt that Martin or the modified Martin discloses pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet with waste heat from a printed circuit board.
Gibson teaches that printed circuit board generates waste heat (see paragraphs 0070-0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of Martin or the modified Martin to utilize heat from the PCB to pre-heat the air mixture of Martin or the modified Martin as taught by Gibson for the purpose of providing an additional waste heat source to pre-heat the air mixture (see paragraphs 0070-0071 of Gibson).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2010/0132708) or alternatively, Martin (2010/0132708) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Krogh Andersen (2014/0276545).
Regarding claim 19, Martin or the modified Martin discloses a battery (see battery in paragraphs 0042 and 0060 of Martin), but fails to disclose pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet conduit with waste heat from the internal battery.
However, Krogh Andersen teaches an internal battery generate heats (see paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of Martin or the modified Martin to be internal and to utilize heat from the internal battery to pre-heat the air mixture of Martin or the modified Martin as taught by Krogh Andersen for the purpose of providing an additional waste heat source to pre-heat the air mixture.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2010/0132708) or alternatively, Martin (2010/0132708) in view of Bremner (2006/0213515) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Krogh Andersen (2014/0276545) and Hughes (2007/0113843).
Regarding claim 20, Martin or the modified Martin discloses a battery (see battery in paragraphs 0042 and 0060 of Martin), but fails to disclose charging an internal battery while operating the CPAP device using an external power source, wherein charging the internal battery generates waste heat; and pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet conduit with waste heat from the internal battery.
However, Krogh Andersen teaches an internal battery generate heats (see paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of Martin or the modified Martin to utilize heat from the battery to pre-heat the air mixture of Martin or the modified Martin as taught by Krogh Andersen for the purpose of providing an additional waste heat source to pre-heat the air mixture.
After the modification, the modified Martin discloses charging an internal battery and pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet conduit with waste heat from the internal battery, but fails to disclose charging an internal battery while operating the CPAP device using an external power source, wherein charging the internal battery generates waste heat; and pre-heating the air mixture in the inlet conduit with waste heat from the internal battery.
However, Hughes teaches that charging of the battery produce heat (see paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CPAP device of the modified Martin to utilize heat from the battery of the modified Martin while the battery is being charged as taught by Hughes for the purpose of providing additional source of waste heat to pre-heat the air mixture..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (11,517,702) is cited to show a compressor and a humidifier, wherein air is being preheated by the waste heat from the compressor.
Budhiraja (2023/0241345) is cited to show a humidification system utilizing waste heat from a flow generator to heat the air.
Nguyen (7,497,215) is cited to show a medical ventilator comprising utilizing heat loss from a pressure generator to pre-treat air that is being provided to the user.
Lundin (2016/0000358) is cited to show an expiratory limb connected to an accumulator.
Higshiyama (2022/0235952) is cited to show a CPAP device comprising a compartment configured to receive a water chamber.
Kramer (2022/0273904) is cited to show a CPAP device comprising a compartment configured to receive a water chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights