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
This office action is responsive to Request for Reconsideration files on . As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 5-15 & 17 – 20 are pending, no claims were cancelled, no claims have been added & claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 15 & 17 – 20 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed01/15/2026, with respect to Specification Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses including Whipple’s inner support member with Cover’s outer support member would not be obvious as Whipple discloses not having any exterior guard. However, it is important to note that what is being modified is Cover to add the inner support member that can be attached to the first opening. Meaning it would add another protective outer wall to protect from any puncture or other damage and it is being modified for the function of that specific limitation of Whipple and not the entire filter system of Whipple.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Cover discloses a configuration that does not have an exhaust valve and that uses filters and gaps to inhale air. However, Cover specifically discloses the use of ONLY filters to inhale air when the exhaled valve is not used. (Column 1, lines 35 – 39) Based on this explanation provided, the modification from Matheson works as the airtight seal allows the air to also exit through the filters. This means when the airtight seal is added to Cover the user may inhale and exhale through the filters. It is important to understand that the only modification made to Cover is adding the airtight seal and as disclosed by the applicant the airtight seal of Matheson specifically discloses that it allows air to exit through the filters.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2025 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 01/15/2026 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 – 6 & 8 - 9 is/are 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), Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) and Whipple et al. (US 2744525 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
and an outer support member 20, the outer support member 20 defining an airflow opening (Figure 7)
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)
PNG
media_image1.png
301
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Annotated Figure 6 of Application Cover at al. US 2120230 A
Cover discloses a mask that fits over a mouth and the nose of a user. (Figure 3)
Cover does not disclose form 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)
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 filter 23 being received in a first filter housing 18 (Figure 7).
However, it does not disclose a replaceable filter.
Matheson discloses a replaceable filter 17 (Column 4, lines 18 - 33).
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 the first filter of Cover be replaceable as it would allow the user to replace the filter units when necessary and ensure that the mask can be reusable. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38 / Column 4, lines 18 - 33)
Modified Cover does not disclose the first filter housing being detachably attachable to the mask over said first opening of said mask.
Matheson discloses the first filter housing 17 being detachably attachable to the mask 10 over said first opening 15 of said mask 10.
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 first filter housing being detachably attachable to the mask over said first opening of said mask in order to remove the respirator to replace the filter units when necessary. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38)
Modified Cover discloses the first filter housing (see annotated Figure 6) defining an internal space 18 (Cover) between the inner support member 39 (Whipple) and the outer support member 20 (Cover) for receiving the first replaceable filter therebetween. (see annotated Figure 6).
Modified Cover does not disclose the first filter housing having a first inner
PNG
media_image2.png
5
3
media_image2.png
Greyscale
support member detachably attachable to the first opening, the first inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the first opening of the mask when the first filter housing is attached to the mask.
Whipple discloses the first filter housing 36 having an inner support member 41 attachable to the first opening 16, the inner support member 39 defining an airflow opening 42 in airflow communication with the first opening 16 of the mask 11 when the first filter housing 36 is attached to the mask 11. (Column 3, lines 27 – 53 / Figure 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify Cover to include an inner support member attachable to the first opening, the inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the first opening of the mask when the first filter housing is attached to the mask. This 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)
Whipple does not disclose a first inner
PNG
media_image2.png
5
3
media_image2.png
Greyscale
support member detachably attachable to the first opening.
However, Modified Cover has already disclosed detachably attachable parts of the device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the first inner support member of Cover to be detachably attachable to the first opening as it would allow the replacement of the part whenever necessary. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38)
Modified Cover does not disclose a first outer support member detachably attachable to the first inner support member.
Cameno discloses a first outer support member detachably attachable. (Paragraph 0014)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to further modify Cover to include a first outer support member detachably attachable as it would allow the filter medium to be removed. (Paragraph 014) Based on this modification, the first outer support member is detachably attachable to the first inner support member as the member is found therebetween with the filter.
Modified Cover discloses the first outer support member 21 (see annotated Figure 6 / Note: the examiner considers the first outer support member to be a part of the first filter housing) defining an airflow opening (Figure 1), wherein the mask 10 is airtight such that upon sealing engagement of the mask 10 over the mouth and the nose of the user (Matheson, Column 1, lines 1 - 6).
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 replaceable filter 23 being receiving in a second filter housing 18 (see annotated Figure 6), the second filter housing 18 being detachably attachable to the mask 10 over the second opening (see annotated Figure 6) of said mask 10 (Matheson, Column, lines 30 – 38), the second filter housing 18 (see annotated Figure 6) having a second inner support member 41 (Whipple) attachable to the second opening (see annotated Figure 6), and a second outer support member 20 (Cover), the second filter housing (see annotated Figure 6) defining an internal space 18 (Cover) between the second inner support member 39 (Whipple) and the second outer support member 20 (Cover) for receiving the second replaceable filter 17 (Matheson) therebetween, the second inner support member 39 (Whipple) defining an airflow opening 42 (Whipple) in airflow communication with the second opening 16 (Whipple), of the mask 10 when the second filter housing 18 is attached to the mask 10, the second outer support member 20 (Cover) defining an airflow opening, wherein air flows through the first replaceable filter 17 and the second replaceable filter 17 (Matheson, Column 4, lines 18 – 33) into the mask 10 upon inhalation of the user and wherein air flows out of the mask 10 through the first replaceable filter 17 and the second replaceable filter 17 (Matheson) upon exhalation of the user. (Column 1, lines 35 – 39)
Modified Cover does not disclose the second filter housing having a second inner support member detachably attachable to the second opening, and a second outer support member detachably attachable to the second inner support member.
Whipple discloses the second filter housing 36 having a second inner support member 41 attachable to the second opening 16, (Column 3, lines 27 – 53 / Figure 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify Cover to include an inner support member attachable to the first opening. This 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)
Whipple does not disclose a second inner
PNG
media_image2.png
5
3
media_image2.png
Greyscale
support member detachably attachable to the second opening.
However, Modified Cover has already disclosed detachably attachable parts of the device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the second inner support member of Cover to be detachably attachable to the second opening as it would allow the replacement of the part whenever necessary. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38)
Modified Cover does not disclose a second outer support member detachably attachable to the second inner support member.
Cameno discloses a second outer support member detachably attachable. (Paragraph 0014)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to further modify Cover to include a second outer support member detachably attachable as it would allow the filter medium to be removed. (Paragraph 014) Based on this modification, the second outer support member is detachably attachable to the second inner support member as the member is found therebetween with the filter.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Cover discloses further comprising 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 6, Modified Cover discloses the respirator as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Cover discloses further comprising a connector 19 (Matheson) received in each of the first opening (see annotated Figure 6) and the second opening (see annotated Figure 6) of said mask 10 for connection to a respective one of said first inner support members of the first filter housing (see annotated Figure 6) and second inner support member of the second filter housing (see annotated Figure 6), the connector 19 (Matheson) received in each of the first opening (see annotated Figure 6) and the second opening (see annotated Figure 6) defining an airflow opening 13 in airflow communication with both the airflow opening 13 of the first inner support member (as claimed in claim 1) and the second inner support member (as claimed in claim 3), respectively, (see annotated Figure 6) and with the respective first opening (see annotated Figure 6) and second opening (see annotated Figure 6) of the mask 10. (Column 2, lines 26 – 30)
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 15, A respirator (Figure 1), comprising:
a mask 10 (Figure 2)
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)
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 discloses said mask 10 defining two openings (see annotated Figure 2) 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 filter housings 18, and an outer support member 20 (Figure 7) defining an airflow opening. (Figure 1 & 3)
Modified Cover does not disclose each of said two filter housings being detachably attachable to said mask over a respective one of said openings of said mask.
Matheson discloses each of said two filter housings 17 being detachably attachable to the mask 10 over a respective one of said openings 15 of said mask 1.
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 first filter housing being detachably attachable to the mask over said first opening of said mask in order to remove the respirator to replace the filter units when necessary. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38)
Modified Cover does not disclose each of the filter housings having an inner support member detachably attachable to one of said openings and an outer support member detachably attachable to the inner support member.
Whipple discloses each of the filter housings 36 having an inner support member 41 attachable to the first opening 16.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify Cover to include each of the filter housings having an inner support member attachable to the first opening. This 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)
Whipple does not disclose each of the filter housings having an inner
PNG
media_image2.png
5
3
media_image2.png
Greyscale
support member detachably attachable to one of said openings.
However, Modified Cover has already disclosed detachably attachable parts of the device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the first inner support member of Cover to be detachably attachable to the first opening as it would allow the replacement of the part whenever necessary. (Matheson, Column 1, lines 30 – 38)
Modified Cover does not disclose a first outer support member detachably attachable to the first inner support member.
Cameno discloses a first outer support member detachably attachable. (Paragraph 0014)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to further modify Cover to include a first outer support member detachably attachable as it would allow the filter medium to be removed. (Paragraph 014) Based on this modification, the first outer support member is detachably attachable to the first inner support member as the member is found therebetween with the filter.
Modified Cover does not disclose each of the filter housings defining an internal space between the inner support member and the outer support member for receiving an air filter therebetween, the inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the opening of the mask when the filter housing is attached to the mask
Whipple discloses an inner support member 39 attachable to one of said openings 16 and an outer support member 39, the inner support member 41 defining an airflow opening 42 in airflow communication with the second opening 16 of the mask 11 when the filter housing 36 is attached to the mask 11. (Column 3, lines 27 – 53)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify Cover to include each of the filter housings defining an internal space between the inner support member and the outer support member for receiving an air filter therebetween, the inner support member defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with the opening of the mask when the filter housing is attached to the mask. This would add a 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. (Column 4, lines 17 – 24)
Modified Cover discloses wherein the mask is airtight such that upon sealing engagement of the mask over the mouth and nose of a user (Matheson, Column 3, lines 59 – 75), air flows through the filter housings 18 into the mask 10 upon inhalation of the user (Claim 7) and wherein air flows out of the mask 10 through the filter housings (see annotated Figure 2) upon exhalation of the user. (Column 1, lines 35 – 39)
Regarding claim 17, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 15.
Modified Cover discloses further comprising two connectors 19, each of said two connectors 19 being received in a respective one of said openings (see annotated Figure 6) of said mask 10 for connection to a respective one of said inner support members (Note: as established in claim 1) of the filter housings 18, each of the connectors 16 defining an airflow opening in airflow communication with both the airflow opening of the inner support member (Note: as established in claim 1) of the filter housing 18 and with the opening of the mask 10 (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed claim 15.
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein 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)
Claim(s) 7 & 14 are 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), Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) and Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) as seen in claim 3 & 6, in further view of Michel et al. (US 4850346 A)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Cover discloses a respirator as claimed in claim 6.
Modified Cover does not disclose wherein the connector is a bayonet style connector.
Michel discloses wherein the connector 16 is a bayonet style connector 56 (Column 5, line 62 – 66)
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 the connector be a bayonet style connector as it is another known means to replace the filter and would be considered a design choice to provide the same function. (Abstract)
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)
Claim(s) 10 & 12 – 13 are 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), Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) and Whipple et al. (US 2744525 A) as claimed in claim 1, in 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 17. (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 17. (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 17. (Referenced 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), Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) and Whipple et al. (US 2744525 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 2).
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) & Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) 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), Cameno et al. (US 20230144471 A1) and Whipple et al. (US 2744525 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 the air filter 17 in each of the filter housings (see annotated Figure 6). (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
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 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