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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:.
1. A filter that defines an axial direction and a radial direction, characterized in that the filter is configured to be used in a respirator, wherein the filter comprises:
a filter medium that has a pleated structure; and
a housing configured to accommodate the filter medium, the housing comprising a ramp defined by a slope of an outer periphery of the housing for axial sealing between the filter and the respirator,
wherein the ramp defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter medium,
wherein the filter medium defines a through hole configured to receive a pin having one or more ribs extending in an axial direction to restrict movement of the filter medium relative to the housing when the pin is received in the through-hole. Emphasis added.
The specification does not provide support for the combined limitations of (1) the ramp being defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing that “extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter medium” and (2) the filter medium defines a through hole configured to receive a pin. Instead, the two limitations combine elements of the exhalation filter 20 and the inhalation filter 10, with there being inadequate disclosure that the Applicant was in possession of combining features for these two different filter elements. Specifically, the first limitation (of the structure of the ramp) describes the structure of the step 2 of the exhalation filter 20, with Figure 2 being the only support for the step 2 having a slope of the outer periphery of the housing of exhalation filter 20 that extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter medium. The second limitation (of the through hole through the filter medium) describes the structure of the through hole 3 of the inhalation filter 10 (see Spec. Fig. 1, [0077]), with there being no disclosure that the exhalation filter 20 comprises a similar through hole (as paragraph [0077] says the exhalation filter 20 is mounted inside the respirator 100 by means of engagement). Therefore, because claim 1 attempts to combine features of the inhalation filter 10 and the exhalation filter 20, with there being no explicit, implicit or inherent disclosure that these features are combinable, claim 1 lacks written description.
Claims 2–5, 7–14, and 20–25 lack written description because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 21 recites:
21. The filter according to claim 30, wherein the ramp defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing extends the entire axial height of the housing. Emphasis added.
The disclosure fails to provide written description support for the limitation of the slope extending the entire axial height of the housing. The text of the specification fails to describe this feature. Also, Fig. 2 is the only portion of the figures showing a step 2 having a slope, and Fig. 2 fails to illustrate the step 2 extending the entire axial heigh of the housing 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–5, 7–12, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, US 2022/0176168 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a filter, which reads on the claimed “filter.” See Adams Fig. 3K, [0060]. The filter defines an “axial direction” (running up and down in Fig. 3K) and a “radial direction” (running side to side in Fig. 3K). Id.
The filter comprises a pleated filter material, which reads on the “filter medium that has a pleated structure.” See Adams Fig. 3K, [0129].
The filter also comprises a “housing configured to accommodate the filter medium,” which is the structure surrounding the pleated filter material, as seen in Fig. 3K. The “housing” comprises a seal made from thermoplastic elastomer overmolding, which reads on the claimed “ramp” (as explained in more detail below). See Adams Fig. 3K, [0129].
The filter material defines a “through hole,” which is the hole in the middle of the filter material, as seen in Fig. 3K. The hole is capable of receiving a pin having one or more fibs extending in an axial direction to restrict movement of the filter medium relative to the housing when the pin is received in the through-hole, as claimed, because a pin with the claimed structure could be inserted into the hole. Note that the “pin” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed “filter” and therefore its structure is not limiting. See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Fig. 3K embodiment of Adams differs from claim 1 because it does not illustrate the seal having a ramp defined by a slope of an outer periphery of the housing, with the ramp defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing extending to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter material, as claimed. But the embodiment of Fig. 3L illustrates a filter having a housing surrounding pleated filter media with the housing comprising a seal made of a thermoplastic elastomer overmolding that has the shape of a ramp defined by a slope of an outer periphery of the housing. Id. at Fig. 3L, [0130]. The ramp-shaped seal defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter material, as seen in Fig. 3L It would have been obvious for the seal of the Fig. 3K embodiment of Adams to have the same ramp shape as the seal of the Fig. 3L embodiment because this would merely represent obvious change in shape. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV, B. The ramp-shaped seal of Fig. 3L would be expected to be capable of performing the function of “axial sealing between the filter and the respirator” because the ramp-shaped seal of Fig. 3L is substantially identical to the ramp 2 seen in Fig. 2 of instant application.
PNG
media_image2.png
614
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Adams teaches that the pleated structure is shown in parallel structure, as seen in Fig. 3K.
Regarding claim 3, Adams teaches that the filter material is made of a HEPA material. See Adams Fig. 3K, [0129].
Regarding claim 4, Adams teaches that the filter material is made from an antibacterial material, because it has a BEF (bacterial filtration efficiency) of greater than 98. See Adams Fig. 3K, [0129], [0124].
Regarding claim 5, Adams teaches that the filter is configured to be an inhalation filter. See Adams [0129].
Regarding claim 7, Adams teaches that a “handle” is provided on the filter, which is a portion of the filter (e.g., the outer face of the seal) that could be gripped by a user. See Adams Fig. 3K.
Regarding claim 8, Adams teaches that the “housing” is configured to be a cylinder, as seen in Fig. 3K.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations requiring that the “cuboid” has curved side surfaces is optional, because claim 9 depends from claim 8, with claim 8 indicating that the housing can be a cylinder or cuboid, with there being no requirement in claim 9 that the housing is cuboid.
Regarding claims 10–12, Adams teaches a smart mask 100 (reading on the claimed “respirator”) comprising the filter of Fig. 3K, where the smart mask 100 is configured to be a face mask and is provided with one or more inhalation filters comprising the filter of Fig. 3K. See Adams Figs. 1D, 3K, [0093], [0103], [0129].
Regarding claim 20, Adams teaches that the housing has an axial height and the filter medium has an axial height, and wherein the axial height of the housing is greater than the axial height of the filter medium, as seen in Fig. 3K where the outer height of the housing is shown as extending above the filter medium.
Regarding claim 22, Adams teaches that the housing is configured to be a cylinder, as seen in Fig. 3K. Also, the outer portion of the filter (that could be gripped by a user) reads on the “handle that is positioned on the outer periphery of the through hole.”
Regarding claim 23, Adams teaches that the housing is made of a thermoplastic elastomer material. See Adams Fig. 3K, [0129]. Also, the filter medium radially interferes with the housing for radial sealing, as claimed, because the housing radially surrounds the filter medium, as seen in Fig. 3K.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, US 2022/0176168 A1 in view of Conrad, US 2021/0275842 A1.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 22, as explained above.
Adams differs from claim 24 because it is silent as to the handle being separate from the housing and positioned radially inward from the housing.
But Conrad teaches a filter cartridge 194 for use in a respirator where the filter cartridge 194 comprises a handle 204 that is separate from the housing of the filter cartridge 194 and with the handle 204 being positioned radially inward from the housing. See Conrad Fig. 78, [0348]. The handle 204 is beneficial because it assists in removal of the filter cartridge 194 from the filter assembly. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the handle 204 of Conrad with the filter (Fig. 3K) of Adams to make it easier to remove the filter (claim 24).
With this modification, the portion of the handle 204 that attaches to the housing reads on the “annular portion.” The portion of the handle 204 that extends outwardly from the housing reads on the “tab portion that extends from the annular portion.” The annular portion extends around the through hole, as claimed, because the housing extends around the through hole, as seen in Fig. 3K of Adams. Also, the tab portion extends radially away from the annular portion, as seen in Fig. 78 of Conrad (claim 25).
Claims 1–5, 7–10, 11, 13, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, US 2022/0176168 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a filter, which reads on the claimed “filter.” See Adams Fig. 3L, [0061]. The filter defines an “axial direction” (running up and down in Fig. 3L) and a “radial direction” (running side to side in Fig. 3L). Id.
The filter comprises a filter material. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130]. While Adams is silent as to the whether the filter material of Fig. 3L is pleated, Adams teaches that it is beneficial to pleat filter media for other embodiments to maximize efficiency. Id. at [0129]. It would have been obvious to pleat the filter material in Fig. 3L to maximize efficiency. With this modification, the filter material reads on the “filter medium that has a pleated structure.”
The filter also comprises a “housing configured to accommodate the filter medium,” which is the structure surrounding the pleated filter material, as seen in Fig. 3K. The “housing” comprises a seal having the shape of a ramp defined by a slope of an outer periphery of the housing. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130]. The seal reads on the “ramp.” The seal is presumed to be capable of “axial sealing between the filter and the respirator,” because the seal has the same structure as the ramp 2 seen in Fig. 2 of the instant specification. The ramp-shaped seal defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the housing extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter material, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 3K.
PNG
media_image3.png
586
1053
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Fig. 3L embodiment of Adams differs from claim 1 because it does not show the Fig. 3L embodiment comprising a through hole, as claimed. But the embodiment of Fig. 3K illustrates a filter having a hole, with Fig. 2U illustrating the hole being used to attach the filter to a frame 250 of a smart mask 100. It would have been obvious for the embodiment of Fig. 3L to comprise the hole of Fig. 3K to assist the filter of Fig. 3L to be attached to a frame of a smart mask.
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Adams teaches that the pleated structure is shown as a parallel structure, as seen in Fig. 3L.
Regarding claim 3, Adams teaches that the filter medium is made of a HEPA material. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130].
Regarding claim 4, Adams teaches that the filter material is made from an antibacterial material, because it has a BEF (bacterial filtration efficiency) of greater than 98. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130], [0124].
Regarding claim 5, Adams teaches that the filter is configured to be an exhalation filter. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130].
Regarding claim 7, Adams teaches that a “handle” is provided on the filter, which is a portion of the filter (e.g., the outer face of the seal) that could be gripped by a user. See Adams Fig. 3L.
Regarding claim 8, Adams teaches that the housing is configured to be a cuboid, as seen in Fig. 3L.
Regarding claim 9, Adams teaches that the cuboid has curved side surfaces, as seen in Fig. 3L.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 13, Adams teaches that the filter of Fig. 3L can be used as an exhaust filter (an exhalation filter) on smart mask 100. See Adams Figs. 1D, 3L, [0093], [0095], [0129]–[0130]. This reads on a “respirator comprising the filter of claim 1 (claim 10)…wherein the respirator is configured to be a face mask or an electric supplied-air respirator (claim 11)…wherein the respirator has a facepiece provided with one or more exhalation filters comprising the filter according to claim 1 (claim 13).”
Regarding claim 20, Adams teaches that the housing has an axial height and the filter medium has an axial height, and wherein the axial height of the housing is greater than the axial height of the filter medium, as seen in Fig. 3L where the outer height of the housing is shown as extending above the filter medium.
Regarding claim 23, Adams teaches that the housing is made of a thermoplastic elastomer material. See Adams Fig. 3L, [0130]. Also, the filter medium radially interferes with the housing for radial sealing, as claimed, because the housing radially surrounds the filter medium, as seen in Fig. 3L.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, US 2022/0176168 A1 in view of Conrad, US 2021/0275842 A1.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 22, as explained above.
Adams differs from claim 24 because it is silent as to the handle being separate from the housing and positioned radially inward from the housing.
But Conrad teaches a filter cartridge 194 for use in a respirator where the filter cartridge 194 comprises a handle 204 that is separate from the housing of the filter cartridge 194 and with the handle 204 being positioned radially inward from the housing. See Conrad Fig. 78, [0348]. The handle 204 is beneficial because it assists in removal of the filter cartridge 194 from the filter assembly. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the handle 204 of Conrad with the filter (Fig. 3L) of Adams to make it easier to remove the filter (claim 24).
With this modification, the portion of the handle 204 that attaches to the housing reads on the “annular portion.” The portion of the handle 204 that extends outwardly from the housing reads on the “tab portion that extends from the annular portion.” The annular portion extends around the through hole, as claimed, because the housing extends around the through hole, as seen in Fig. 3L of Adams. Also, the tab portion extends radially away from the annular portion, as seen in Fig. 78 of Conrad (claim 25).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, US 2022/0176168 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, it would have been obvious for the inhale filter of the Fig. 3K embodiment to be modified in view of the Fig. 3L embodiment for the reasons explained in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above (first rejection). It also would have been obvious for the filter of the exhale filter of the Fig. 3L embodiment to be modified in view of the Fig. 3K embodiment for the reasons explained in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above (second rejection).
With these modifications, Adams teaches that the smart mask 100 comprises one exhalation filter 160 (the Fig. 3L filter) and two inhalation filters 111R, 111L (the Fig. 3K filter). See Adams Fig. 1D, [0095], [0103]. The exhalation filter 160 is arranged in the middle of a lower portion of the smart mask 100 at the mouth of a user, and the inhalation filters 111R, 111L are arranged on two sides of the smart mask and above the exhalation filter 160 in a vertical direction. Id.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Written Description Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejections, in light of the amendments. However, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to satisfy the written description requirement, as explained above.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Meunier, US 5,022,901 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, the claims remain unpatentable as obvious over Adams, for the reasons explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Atri, US 2021/0368885 A1 (mask with filtration system); Sebastian et al., US 2019/0299035 A1 (pleated filter that can be used with mask); Yurechko et al., US 10,105,557 B1 (filter cartridge with valve arrangement).
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights