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 Arguments
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 07/17/2026. As directed by the amendments: claims 1, 3, 5 – 15 & 18 – 21 are pending, claims 2, 4, 6, 16 & 17 were canceled, claims 1, 3, 7, 15 & 19 – 20 were amended and claim 21 was added.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the modification are not rendered obvious by the prior art; however, the rules of examination dictate the product can be modified as long as the modifications do not affect the function of the original device. This includes being able to add new functions to the device that are beneficial, but do not take away from the original function. Based in MPEP 2143 a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an example of rational. Also, the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. All the presented prior art are analogous devices that maintain the function of a filtration system for a respirating device. Based on this, the rejection still stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the modifications are made to overcome the sizable gap between Cover and the claimed invention, however the modification is made based on combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 discloses modifications can be made based on (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. Based on these parameters, the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Matheson does not read on “a filter housing being detachably attachable to the mask over a first opening” as the function is based on (1) to detachably attach to the mask over the first opening and (2) to be disassembled and reassembled so that a user can access and replace the filter, however, the claimed premise does not include the function of disassembling the filter housing and only discloses it being attached and detached from the opening. Based on this, Matheson clearly reads on that function between the filter housing and the opening. However, for this reconsideration another prior art was used to teach this claim limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whipple et al. as it reads on the claim limitation based on the elements of Cover and their functionalities.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the rubber gasket of Cover was never intended to be detached from the mask, however, the art does not disclose the specifics of how the rubber gasket is attached to the mask body which makes it possible for the attaching mechanism to be modified for adding functionality to the device.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whipple et al. as it reads on the claim limitation based on the elements of Cover and their functionalities. A more detailed explanation has been given about the modification of the inner support member in Cover.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the examiner examining claim 1 with a new view based on the rewrite of the amendments, based on this, Modified Cover was modified differently than the most recent office action. The remarks made by the applicant are accepted as the examiner has modified Cover with different considerations from the prior art. Cameno was not used to modify Cover meaning the arguments for Cameno are accepted.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues claim 15 is allowable based on the same reasons as claim 1. However, the arguments made for claim 1 are not persuasive and this also applies to the arguments made for claim 15.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the dependent claims would be allowable based on the arguments provided for independent claims 1 & 15. However, the arguments were considered not persuasive.
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 (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 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) 1, 3, 5, 7 – 9, 14 - 15 & 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cover et al. (US 2120230 A) in view of Matheson et al. (US 2652828 A), Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) & Michel et al (US 4850346 A).
Regarding claim 1, A respirator (Figure 2), comprising:
a mask 10 (Figure 2);
said mask 10 defining a first opening (see annotated Figure 6 / Column 2, lines 5 – 9) for permitting airflow through said first opening (Claim 2)
wherein the mask does not include a separate exhalation valve or opening. (Column 1, lines 35 – 39); and
air flows through the first filter 23 into the mask 10 upon inhalation of the user and wherein air flows out of the mask 10 through the first filter 23 upon exhalation of the user (Column 1, lines 35 – 39),
the mask fits over a mouth and the nose of a user. (Figure 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
301
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Annotated Figure 6 of Application Cover at al. US 2120230 A
Cover does not disclose an airtight seal over the mouth and the nose of the user.
Matheson discloses a snugly fit in order to form an airtight seal over the mouth and the nose of the user (Column 1, lines 42 – 50), wherein the mask is airtight such that upon sealing engagement of the mask over the mouth and nose of a user (Column 3, lines 59 – 75),
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify in order to modify Cover to include a snugly fit in order to form an airtight seal over the mouth and the nose of the user in order to provide protection against dusts, mists, gases, and vapors of various kinds. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 1 - 6)
Cover discloses a first connector 16 in the first opening (see annotated Figure 6), the first connector 16 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the first opening (see annotated Figure 6) of the mask 10 (Column 2, lines 22 – 26 / Figure 6)
Cover does not disclose the first connector removably receivable in the first opening.
Michel discloses the first connector 12 removably receivable in the first opening 13. (Column 3, lines 1 – 17 / 28 – 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the connector of Cover to be removably receivable in the first opening as it would allow alternative mounting of the filter cartridges in either port. (Column 3, lines 28 – 34) This connector being a bayonet style connector also allows for the cartridge to have a connection to the first connector which uses lugs that are part of the cartridge to place it upon the connector. The cartridge is pressed inwardly and rotated relatively to the fitting in a clockwise direction to be clamped tightly to the fitting assuring no air leakage can take place between the connector and the cartridge. Based on the connections disclosed, it would we obvious to allow the connector to be removable to the cartridge and all the elements inside the cartridge. (Column 6, lines 18 – 39)
Modified Cover does not disclose a first inner support member selectively detachably attachable to the first connector, the first inner support member defining an airflow communication with the airflow opening of the first connector and the first opening of the mask when the first inner support member is attached to the first connector, and
a first outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the first inner support member, the first outer support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening of the first inner support member when the first outer support member is attached to the first inner support member,
wherein when the first inner support member is attached to the first outer support member, an internal space is defined between the first inner support member and the first outer support member for receiving a first replaceable filter.
Whipple discloses a first inner support member 41, the first inner support member 41 defining an airflow communication 42 with the airflow opening of the first connector 16 and the first opening 17 (Note: the examiner considers this to be the opening leading into reference number ‘11’) of the mask 11 when the first inner support member 41 is attached to the first connector 16 (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation). (Column 2, lines 7 – 31 / Column 3, lines 27 – 53 / Figure 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the cartridge of Cover to include a first inner support member defining an airflow communication with the airflow opening of the first connector and the first opening of the mask when the first inner support member is attached to the first connector as it would add an outer perforated wall that would allow the air to be channeled through and helps back the filter firmly to protect it from any puncturing or other damage. (Whipple, Column 4, lines 17 – 24)
Modified Cover discloses the first inner support member 41 (Whipple) selectively detachably attachable to the first connector 12 (Mitchel). (Claim 1 discloses an indirect attachable mechanism of the elements of the cartridge to the first connector)
Whipple also discloses a first outer support member 36 selectively detachably attachable to the first inner support member 41, the first outer support member 35 & 36 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening 42 of the first inner support member 41 when the first outer support member 35 & 36 is attached (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation) to the first inner support member 41 (Column 3, lines 27 – 54),
wherein when the first inner support member 41 is attached to the first outer support member 35 & 36, an internal space is defined between the first inner support member 41 and the first outer support member 35 & 36 for receiving a first replaceable filter 44. (Figure 2 / Column 3, lines 27 – 54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Cover to include a first outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the first inner support member, the first outer support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening of the first inner support member when the first outer support member is attached to the first inner support member, wherein when the first inner support member is attached to the first outer support member, an internal space is defined between the first inner support member and the first outer support member for receiving a first replaceable filter as the first outer support member is able to engage and disengage the filter pad against the first inner support member and seal the edges of the filter pad. (Column 3, lines 27 – 54) This allows a replacement of the filter by detaching the outer support member when it becomes spent. (Column 2, last paragraph – Column 3, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 3, Modified Cover discloses the respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses the mask 10 further defines a second opening (see annotated Figure 6) for permitting airflow through said second opening (see annotated Figure 6),
a second connector 16 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the second opening (see annotated Figure 6) of the mask 10 (Column 2, lines 22 – 26 / Figure 6)
Modified Cover does not disclose the second connector removably receivable in the second opening.
Michel discloses a second connector 12 removably receivable in the second opening 13. (Column 3, lines 1 – 17 / 28 – 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the connector of Cover to be removably receivable in the second opening as it would allow alternative mounting of the filter cartridges in either port. (Column 3, lines 28 – 34) This connector being a bayonet style connector also allows for the cartridge to have a connection to the first connector which uses lugs that are part of the cartridge to place it upon the connector. The cartridge is pressed inwardly and rotated relatively to the fitting in a clockwise direction to be clamped tightly to the fitting assuring no air leakage can take place between the connector and the cartridge. Based on the connections disclosed, it would we obvious to allow the connector to be removable to the cartridge and all the elements inside the cartridge. (Column 6, lines 18 – 39)
Modified Cover does not disclose a second inner support member selectively detachably attachable to the second connector,
a second outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the second inner support member,
the second inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second connector and the second opening of the mask when the second inner support member is attached to the connector,
the second outer support member defining an airflow opening un airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second inner support member when the second outer support member is attached to the second inner support member,
wherein when the second inner support member is attached to the second outed support member,
an internal space is defined between the second inner support member and the second outer support member for receiving a second replaceable filter.
Whipple discloses a second inner support member 41, the second inner support member 41 defining an airflow opening 42 in airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second connector 16 and the second opening 17 (Note: the examiner considers this to be the opening leading into reference number ‘11’) of the mask 11 when the second inner support member 41 is attached to the connector 16. (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation). (Column 2, lines 7 – 31 / Column 3, lines 27 – 53 / Figure 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the cartridge of Cover to include a second inner support member defining an airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second connector and the second opening of the mask when the second inner support member is attached to the second connector as it would add an outer perforated wall that would allow the air to be channeled through and helps back the filter firmly to protect it from any puncturing or other damage. (Whipple, Column 4, lines 17 – 24)
Modified Cover discloses the first inner support member 41 (Whipple) selectively detachably attachable to the first connector 12 (Mitchel). (Claim 1 discloses an indirect attachable mechanism of the elements of the cartridge to the first connector)
Modified Cover does not disclose a second outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the second inner support member,
the second outer support member defining an airflow opening un airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second inner support member when the second outer support member is attached to the second inner support member,
wherein when the second inner support member is attached to the second outed support member,
an internal space is defined between the second inner support member and the second outer support member for receiving a second replaceable filter.
Whipple also discloses a second outer support member 36 selectively detachably attachable to the second inner support member 41, the second outer support member 35 & 36 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening 42 of the second inner support member 41 when the second outer support member 35 & 36 is attached (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation) to the first inner support member 41 (Column 3, lines 27 – 54),
wherein when the second inner support member 41 is attached to the second outer support member 35 & 36, an internal space is defined between the second inner support member 41 and the second outer support member 35 & 36 for receiving a second replaceable filter 44. (Figure 2 / Column 3, lines 27 – 54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Cover to include a It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Cover to include a second outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the second inner support member, the second outer support member defining an airflow opening un airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second inner support member when the second outer support member is attached to the second inner support member, wherein when the second inner support member is attached to the second outed support member and an internal space is defined between the second inner support member and the second outer support member for receiving a second replaceable filter as the second outer support member is able to engage and disengage the filter pad against the first inner support member and seal the edges of the filter pad. (Column 3, lines 27 – 54) This allows a replacement of the filter by detaching the outer support member when it becomes spent. (Column 2, last paragraph – Column 3, first paragraph)
outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the first inner support member, the first outer support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening of the first inner support member when the first outer support member is attached to the first inner support member, wherein when the first inner support member is attached to the first outer support member, an internal space is defined between the first inner support member and the first outer support member for receiving a first replaceable filter as the first outer support member is able to engage and disengage the filter pad against the first inner support member and seal the edges of the filter pad. (Column 3, lines 27 – 54) This allows a replacement of the filter by detaching the outer support member when it becomes spent. (Column 2, last paragraph – Column 3, first paragraph)
Modified Cover discloses wherein air flows through the first replaceable filter 44 (Whipple) and the second replaceable filter 44 (Whipple) into the mask 10 upon inhalation of the user (Cover, Column 1, lines 35 – 39) and
wherein air flows out of the mask 10 through the first replaceable filter 44 (Whipple) and the second replaceable filter 44 (Whipple) upon exhalation of the user. (Cover, Column 1, lines 35 – 39)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Matheson further discloses a strap 28 for snugly attaching the mask 10 to the face of the user to create a seal on the face of the user (Matheson, Column 1, lines 51 – 58 – Column 2, lines 1 – 4 / Column 1, lines 2 – 5), the strap 28 having a first end 25 attached to the mask 10 and second end 29 for attachment to a rear portion of the head of user. (Column 3, lines 9 – 14)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 6.
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the connector 12 (Michel) is a bayonet style connector. (Claim 1 was modified to include a bayonet style connector)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses wherein the mask 10 is formed of an elastomeric material or silicone (Column 2, lines 1 – 3).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 8,
Modified Cover discloses wherein the elastomeric material is rubber (Column 2, lines 1 – 3).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Cover discloses the respirator of claim 3.
Modified Cover discloses wherein each of the first inner support member (as claimed in claim 1) and the second inner support member (as claimed in claim 3) has an inner surface. (as claimed in claim 3)
Modified Cover does not disclose a plurality of fins being formed on the inner surface.
Michel discloses a plurality of fins 79. (Figure 4)
Michel does not expressly disclose wherein the fins are formed on the inner surface.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date to modify Cover to incorporate a plurality of fins in the inner surface as the arrangement can provide maximum circulation of air as it is drawn through the inhalation valve. (Column 7, lines 26 – 32)
Regarding claim 15, A respirator (Figure 1), comprising:
a mask 10 (Figure 2)
said mask 10 defining two openings (see annotated Figure 6) for permitting airflow through said openings (Column 2, lines 5 – 9)
wherein the mask does not include a separate exhalation valve or opening. (Column 1, lines 35 – 39)
two connectors 16, each connector 16 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the respective opening (see annotated Figure 6) of said mask 10. (Column 2, lines 22 – 26 / Figure 6)
Cover does not disclose a configuration to snugly fit over the mouth and nose of a user in order to form an airtight seal over the mouth and nose of the user
Matheson discloses a snugly fit over a mouth and a nose of a user in order to form an airtight seal over the mouth and the nose of the user (Column 1, lines 42 – 50), wherein the mask 10 is airtight such that upon sealing engagement of the mask 10 over the mouth and nose of a user (Column 1, lines 42 – 50).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify in order to modify Cover to include a snugly fit over a mouth and a nose of a user in order to form an airtight seal over the mouth and the nose of the user in order to eliminate noticeable pressure points, particularly over the critical nasal region. Also, greatly increase the comfort without the sacrifice of efficiency. (Matheson, Column 3, lines 59 – 75)
Modified Cover does not disclose each of said two connectors being removably receivable in a respective one of said openings of said masks.
Mitchel discloses each of said two connectors 12 being removably receivable in a respective one of said openings 13 of said masks. (Column 3, lines 1 – 17 / 28 – 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify each of the connectors of Cover to be removably receivable in the respective opening as it would allow alternative mounting of the filter cartridges in either port. (Column 3, lines 28 – 34) This connector being a bayonet style connector also allows for the cartridge to have a connection to the respective connector which uses lugs that are part of the cartridge to place it upon the connector. The cartridge is pressed inwardly and rotated relatively to the fitting in a clockwise direction to be clamped tightly to the fitting assuring no air leakage can take place between the connector and the cartridge. Based on the connections disclosed, it would we obvious to allow the connector to be removable to the cartridge and all the elements inside the cartridge. (Column 6, lines 18 – 39)
Modified Cover does not disclose does not disclose two inner support members, each inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the respective airflow opening of the respective connectors and the respective opening of said mask when the respective inner support member is attached to the respective connector.
Mitchel discloses two inner support members 41, each inner support member 41 defining an airflow opening 42 in airflow communication with the respective airflow opening of the respective connectors 16 and the respective opening 17 (Note: the examiner considers this to be the opening leading into reference number ‘11’) of said mask 11 when the respective inner support member 41 is attached to the respective connector 16. (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation). (Column 2, lines 7 – 31 / Column 3, lines 27 – 53 / Figure 3)
Modified Cover discloses each of said inner support members 41 (Whipple) being selectively detachably attachable to a respective one of said connectors 12 (Mitchel). (Claim 1 discloses an indirect attachable mechanism of the elements of the cartridge to the first connector)
Modified Cover does not disclose two outer support members 35 & 36, each of said outer support members 35 & 36 being selectively detachably attachable to a respective one of said inner support members 41, each outer support member 35 & 36 further defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the airflow opening 42 of the respective inner support member 41 when the respective outer support member 35 & 36 is attached (Note: The examiner considers “attached” does not mean directly connected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation) to the respective inner support member 41 (Column 3, lines 27 – 54; and
two replaceable filters 44, wherein when the respective inner support members 41 are attached to the respective outer support members 35 & 36, an internal space is defined between each of the respective inner support members 41 and the respective outer support members 35 & 36 for receiving one of the replaceable filters 44. (Figure 2 / Column 3, lines 27 – 54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Cover to include as it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Cover to include a second outer support member selectively detachably attachable to the second inner support member, the second outer support member defining an airflow opening un airflow communication with the airflow opening of the second inner support member when the second outer support member is attached to the second inner support member, wherein when the second inner support member is attached to the second outed support member and an internal space is defined between the second inner support member and the second outer support member for receiving a second replaceable filter as the second outer support member is able to engage and disengage the filter pad against the first inner support member and seal the edges of the filter pad. (Column 3, lines 27 – 54) This allows a replacement of the filter by detaching the outer support member when it becomes spent. (Column 2, last paragraph – Column 3, first paragraph)
Modified Cover discloses air flows through the two replaceable filters 44 (Whipple) into the mask 10 upon inhalation of the user (Cover, Column 1, lines 35 – 39) and wherein air flows out of the mask 10 through the two replaceable filters 44 (Whipple) upon exhalation of the user. (Cover, Column 1, lines 35 – 39)
Regarding claim 20, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 15.
Modified Cover discloses wherein each of the outer support member 20 of the filter housings 18 define a plurality of airflow openings 22 (Cover discloses a breathing screen that includes a plurality of airway openings). (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 21, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses wherein there in no inhalation valve diaphragm present in the first opening. (Column 2, last paragraph / Note: Cover discloses an always open first opening that does not close)
Claim(s) 10 & 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cover et al. (US 2120230 A) in view of Matheson et al. (US 2652828 A), Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) & Michel et al (US 4850346 A) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Dalton et al. (US 20220096876 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses a first replaceable filter 44. (Referenced in claim 1)
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the filter has a width or a diameter of about 8.5cm.
Dalton discloses wherein the filter has a width or a diameter of about 8.5cm. (Paragraph 0067 discloses a width of 100 mm which is 10 cm and meets “about 8.5 cm” limitation)
However it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Cover to have a filter with a width of diameter of about 8.5 cm since it is known in the art taught by Dalton to have a filter for a mask to be this size. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the diameter, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses a first replacement filter 44. (Referenced in claim 1)
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the filter has an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM.
Dalton discloses wherein the filter 16 has an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM. (Note: these parameters are known for being the requirements of the N95 filter standard) (Paragraph 0053, lines 3 discloses the filter meets the N95 standard)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Cover to include a filter that has an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM in order to fit the standards of the N95 set by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational safety and health and filters at least 95 percent of airborne particles. (Paragraph 0053)
Regarding claim 13, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses the first replaceable filter 44. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the filter is one of a N95 filter pad, a P100 filter pad and a R95 filter pad.
Dalton discloses wherein the filter 16 is one of a N95 filter pad, a P100 filter pad and a R95 filter pad. (Paragraph 0053)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Cover to include a N95 filter pad, a P100 filter pad and a R95 filter pad in order to ensure the filtering out of the air at least 95 percent of airborne particles. (Paragraph 0053)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Cover et al. (US 2120230 A) in view of Matheson et al. (US 2652828 A), Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) & Michel et al (US 4850346 A) as seen in claim 2, in further view of Adams et al. (US 20210345695 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses a first opening (see annotated Figure 6).
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the opening formed in said mask has a diameter in a range of about 2.15 cm to about 2.65 cm.
Adams teaches wherein the opening 152 formed in said mask 100 has a diameter in a range of about 2.15 cm to about 2.65 cm. (Paragraph 0156 discloses an outer diameter of the intake filter is about 4.2 and an inner diameter of about 1 cm)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an opening formed in said mask that has a diameter in a range of about 2.15 cm to about 2.65 cm. It is known in the art to have the opening between the mask and the filter to have this size (Paragraph 0156). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the diameter, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) toa particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cover et al. (US 2120230 A) in view of Matheson et al. (US 2652828 A), Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) & Michel et al (US 4850346 A) as seen in claim 15, in further view of Adams et al. (US 20210345695 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed claim 15.
Modified Cover discloses openings (see annotated Figure 6).
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the opening formed in said mask have a diameter in a range of about 2.15 cm to about 2.65 cm.
Adam teaches wherein the opening 152 formed in said mask 100 has a diameter in a range of about 2.15 cm to about 2.65 cm. (Paragraph 0129 discloses an outer diameter of the intake filter is about 4.2 and an inner diameter of about 1 cm)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the diameter of the mask, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the diameter, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) toa particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cover et al. (US 2120230 A) in view of Matheson et al. (US 2652828 A), Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) & Michel et al (US 4850346 A) as claimed in claim 15, in further view of Dalton et al. (US 20220096876 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 15.
Modified Cover discloses each of the two replaceable filter (as claimed in claim 15). (Figure 5)
Modified Cover does not disclose an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM.
Dalton discloses an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM. (Note: these parameters are known for being the requirements of the N95 filter standard) (Paragraph 0053, lines 3 discloses the filter meets the N95 standard)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Cover to include a filter that has an inhalation breathing resistance of 11.5 mm per water column (mmWC) at 85 litres per minute (LPM) and an exhalation breathing resistance of 10.5 mmWC at 85 LPM in order to fit the standards of the N95 set by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational safety and health and filters at least 95 percent of airborne particles. (Paragraph 0053)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights