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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aylsworth US 7114497.
Regarding claim 1, Aylsworth discloses a respiratory system comprising:
a nasal interface (78) comprising a first nasal outlet configured to convey a flow of respiratory gases to a first nare of a user, and a second nasal outlet configured to convey a flow of respiratory gases to a second nare of the user (Fig. 6), and
a blower (machine 30) comprising a first outlet (outlet of 32) and a second outlet (outlet of 40), the first outlet of the blower being in fluid communication with the first nasal outlet of the nasal interface, and the second outlet of the blower being in fluid communication with the second nasal outlet of the nasal interface (Fig. 2), and, in a first configuration, the blower being controlled to rotate in a first direction of rotation to provide a flow of gases to the first nasal outlet that is greater than a flow of gases provided to the second nasal outlet (col. 5 ln. 10-13, 50-51).
Regarding claim 2, Aylsworth further discloses that the blower comprises an impeller (Aylsworth uses the term “blower” for the impeller) and a housing (dashed line Fig. 2), the housing comprising an impeller chamber in which the impeller rotates (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Aylsworth further discloses that the blower comprises a motor (62,65), the motor being capable of driving rotation of the impeller, and the housing comprising a motor chamber, the motor chamber being configured to support the motor within the housing. Official notice is taken that it is well known and common knowledge that positive airway pressure housings fully encompass all components of the device including motors.
Regarding claim 4, Aylsworth further discloses that the impeller is a centrifugal impeller (Fig. 2, the symbol is the reference symbol for centrifugal fans).
Regarding claim 5, Aylsworth further discloses that the first outlet extends substantially tangentially from the housing with respect to the first direction of rotation (Fig. 2), and the second outlet extends substantially tangentially from the housing with respect to a second direction of rotation (Fig. 2) that is opposite of the first direction of rotation (col. 10 ln. 15-25).
Regarding claim 16, Aylsworth further discloses that the nasal interface (78) is a non-sealing interface (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Aylsworth further discloses that blades of the impeller are angled, curved and/or otherwise shaped for the impeller to be preferentially rotated in one direction (Fig. 1, note flow arrows).
Regarding claim 18, Aylsworth further discloses that blades of the impeller are radially extending blades that are straight or otherwise shaped to give a given flow rate for a given rotational speed regardless of rotational direction (inherent, as the shape of the blades will inherently produce a given a certain flow rate for the speed and direction of rotation).
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylsworth US 7114497 in view of Granger US 20100044468.
Regarding claim 13, Aylsworth further discloses that the blower comprises a housing (dashed line Fig. 2), a first impeller (32) and a second impeller (40), the housing comprising a first impeller chamber in which the first impeller rotates and a second impeller chamber in which the second impeller rotates (Fig. 2).
However, it does not teach that the first impeller and the second impeller being rotationally coupled, and the first impeller being configured to generate a flow of gases from the first outlet of the blower and the second impeller being configured to generate a flow of gases from the second outlet of the blower.
Granger teaches a blower with a housing (Fig. 3), a first impeller (36) and a second impeller (38), the housing comprising a first impeller chamber in which the first impeller rotates and a second impeller chamber in which the second impeller rotates (Fig. 4), the first impeller and second impeller being rotationally coupled ([0058]), and the first impeller being configured to generate a flow of gases from the first outlet (18) of the blower and the second impeller being configured to generate a flow of gases from the second outlet (22) of the blower ([0057]).
Since both Aylsworth and Granger teach blowers with a first and second impeller, either separately rotate or rotationally coupled, and applicant has not disclosed that having the impellers rotationally coupled solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the impellers generate a flow, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the means for rotating the impellers as taught by Aylsworth by utilizing the known technique of rotationally coupling the impellers as taught by Granger, in order to achieve the predictable result of rotating the impellers to generate a flow through the respective outlets. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches a motor (Granger, 42) for driving rotation of the first impeller and the second impeller, the motor comprising a rotor and a stator (inherent), wherein the first impeller and the second impeller are coupled to the rotor so that the rotor, the first impeller and the second impeller rotate together ([0057]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination further teaches that the rotor is positioned axially between the first impeller and the second impeller (Granger, Fig. 4), and wherein the housing comprises a motor chamber (44) for the motor located axially between the first impeller chamber and the second impeller chamber (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylsworth US 7114497 in view of Makinson US 20040016430.
Regarding claim 19, Aylsworth does not teach a humidifier to humidify a flow of respiratory gases entering the blower.
Makinson teaches a respiratory system comprising a humidifier (5) to humidify a flow of respiratory gas (Fig. 2). Thus, 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 respiratory system as taught by Aylsworth by utilizing a humidify as taught by Makinson, in order to humidify a flow of respiratory gas.
Applicant has not disclosed that having humidifier upstream of the blower solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the respiratory air should be humidified, and it appears that combination would perform equally well with the humidifier upstream of the blower as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify order of the blower and humidifier by utilizing a humidifier upstream of the blower as claimed for the purpose of blowing humidified respiratory gas to the patient. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, Alysworth does not teach a first humidifier to humidify a flow of gases between the first outlet of the blower and the first nasal outlet of the nasal interface, and a second humidifier to humidify a flow of gases between the second outlet of the blower and the second nasal outlet of the nasal interface.
Makinson teaches a respiratory system comprising a humidifier (5) to humidify a flow of respiratory gas (Fig. 2) between a first outlet (outlet of 21) and a first nasal outlet of the nasal interface (at 2). Thus, 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 respiratory system as taught by Aylsworth by utilizing a humidify as taught by Makinson, in order to humidify a flow of respiratory gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745