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:
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 ramp includes a ramp width extending in the radial direction and a ramp height extending in the axial direction, the ramp width being greater than the ramp height. Underlined portions original.
The newly added limitation of—“the ramp includes a ramp width extending in the radial direction and a ramp height extending in the axial direction, the ramp width being greater than the ramp height”—is new matter because it is not supported by the disclosure. It is noted that the Applicant argues that this limitation is supported by paragraph [0074] and Figs. 2–3 of the originally filed specification and drawings. See Applicant Rem. filed October 20, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6. But paragraph [0074] of the specification fails to provide support for the new limitation because this paragraph is silent as to a ramp with a width that is greater than a height. Also, Figs. 2 and 3 are not drawn to scale and the disclosure fails to provide dimensions. Therefore, while the Applicant has provided an annotated version of Fig. 2 showing what the attorney asserts are the dimensions of the ramp (with the width being greater than the height), this is insufficient to provide written description support for the new limitation, because the dimensions were not originally included in the specification, and the original drawings are not to scale. See MPEP 2125, subsection II (it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue).
Claims 2–5, 7–14 and 20–25 are rejected for failing the written description requirement for introducing new matter because they depend from claim 1.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10–13, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901.
Regarding claim 1, Meunier teaches a particulate filter 70 that can be used in a canister of a gas mask. See Meunier Figs. 2, 3, col. 2, ll. 45–58. The filter 70 reads on the “filter.” The filter 70 defines an axial direction (running up and down through the filter 70 seen in Fig. 3) and a radial direction (running left to right through the filter 70 seen in Fig. 3).
The filter 70 comprises a pleated filter medium 72, which reads on the “filter medium that has a pleated structure.” See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 45–58.
The filter 70 also comprises a sealing ring 74 that is molded onto the outer periphery of the filter 70. See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 45–58. The sealing ring 74 reads on the “housing configured to accommodate the filter medium.” The sealing ring 74 comprises a ramp-shaped upper section 92, which reads on the “ramp.” Id. at Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68. The upper section 92 is defined by a slope of an outer periphery of the sealing ring 74 because the upper section 92 has a taper angle B of about 15°. Id. The upper section 92 is for axial sealing between the filter 70 and a cover 56 of a canister 50 of a respirator. See Meunier Fig. 4, col. 3, ll. 18–21.
The upper section 92 is defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the sealing ring 74 extends to a position that is axially outward from an axial extremity of the filter medium 72, as seen in Figs. 2 and 3.
The ramp-shaped upper section 92 includes a “ramp width” extending in the radial direction, which is the width of the upper section 92 from left to right, as seen in Fig. 3. The upper section 92 also comprises a “ramp height” extending in the axial direction, which is the height of the upper section 92 (from the top of lower section 90 to the top of upper section 92), as seen in Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
998
1981
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meunier differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the dimensions of the ramp-shaped upper section 92 (the “ramp”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the width of the upper section 92 (the “ramp width”) is greater than the height (the “ramp height”), as claimed.
But Fig. 3 illustrates that the height and width of the upper section 92 are about equal with one another. Also, the upper section 92 is part of the sealing ring 74 that creates a seal between pleated filter medium 72 and a housing 54 when the filter 70 is inserted into the housing 54. See Meunier Figs. 2–3, col. 2, l. 59–col. 3, l. 21. Further, the upper section 92 is designed such that its diameter is greater than the inner face of the housing 54 so that when the filter 70 is inserted into the housing 54, the upper section 92 is compressed against the inner face of the housing 54 to create a seal area 100. Id. at col. 3, ll. 1–21.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the desired dimensions of the upper section 92 so that the width is greater than the height, depending on the desired size of the filter 70 (and shorter filter will have a shorter height for the upper section 92) while ensuring that the upper section 92 has a large enough diameter to be compressed against the inner face of the housing 54 to create a seal area 100. Note also that there is no evidence that the particular dimensions of the claim (ramp width are greater than ramp height). Therefore, modifying the upper section 92 such that the width is greater than the height would have been an obvious design choice, depending on the desired dimensions of the filter 70 and housing 54. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV, A (where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art deice, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Meunier teaches that the pleated structure of the filter medium 72 has a parallel structure when viewed in a cross section parallel to a filtration surface of the filter medium 72, because the pleats are parallel with one another as seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, Meunier teaches that the filter 70 is configured to be an inhalation and exhalation filter because it is configured to be used as a filter in a gas mask. See Meunier col. 1, ll. 4–6.
Regarding claim 7, Meunier teaches a “handle” provided on the filter 70, which is a portion of the filter 70 that could be gripped by a user, such as the outer face 88 of the sealing ring 74. See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68.
Regarding claim 8, Meunier teaches that the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) is configured to be a cylinder. See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Meunier teaches a gas mask comprising the filter 70. See Meunier col. 1, ll. 4–6. The gas mask reads on the “respirator” (claim 10) and “the respirator is configured to be a face mask” (claim 11).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Meunier teaches that the gas mask has a “facepiece” because it is a gas mask. See Meunier col. 1, ll. 4–6. The facepiece is provided with at least one of the filters 70. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 33–51. The filters 70 are inhalation and exhalation filters because a user will breathe into and out of the filters 70 while wearing the gas mask. Therefore, Meunier teaches the facepiece is “provided with one or more inhalation filters comprising the filter according to claim 1” (claim 12) and the facepiece is “provided with one or more exhalation filters comprising the filter according to claim 1” (claim 13).
Regarding claim 20, Meunier teaches that the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) has an axial height and the filter medium 72 has an axial height, and wherein the axial height of the sealing ring 74 is greater than the axial height of the filter medium 72, as seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 21, Meunier is interpreted such that the lower section 90 and the upper section 92 of the sealing ring 74 read on the “ramp.” See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68. The “ramp” is defined by the slope of the outer periphery of the lower section 90 and the upper section 92 of the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) along the entire axial height of the sealing ring 74, as claimed. This is because the outer face 88 of the sealing ring 74 (made of the upper and lower sections 92, 90) tapers from the top to the bottom. See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901 in view of Skov, US 5,736,041.
Regarding claim 3, Meunier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Meunier differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the filter medium 72 being made of a HEPA material.
But Skov teaches a filter element 1 for a respirator comprising a filter material 2 made of a HEPA material, as it has an 99.998% for NaCl particles, as the Degree of Pass for NaCl% is reported to be as low as 0.002. See Skov Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 40–52 Table 2, col. 4, ll. 41–53. The filter material is beneficial because it has a relatively high filtration efficiency. It would have been obvious to use the filter material 2 of Skov as the material of the filter medium 72 of Meunier to improve filtration efficiency.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901 in view of Skov, US 5,736,041 in view of Cresswell et al., US 2021/0331007 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Meunier in view of Skov teaches the limitations of claim 3, as explained above.
Meunier in view of Skov differs from claim 4 because Skov is silent as to the filter material 2 being made of an antibacterial or antiviral material and/or an activated carbon fabric material, as claimed.
But Cresswell teaches a filter cartridge 10 to be used with a respirator, comprising a filter media that is coated with antimicrobials or activated carbon to increase filter effectiveness. See Cresswell Fig. 1, [0080]. It would have been obvious to coat the filter material 2 of Skov (used as the material of the filter medium 72 of Meunier) with antimicrobials or activated carbon to increase filter effectiveness.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901 in view of Fay, III et al., US 11,123,584 B1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Meunier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Meunier differs from claims 8 and 9 because it is silent as to the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) being configured as a cuboid having curved side surfaces.
But Meunier teaches that the sealing ring 74 is cylindrical while having substantially the same shape as the canister 50 that the filter 70 is inserted into. See Meunier Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 33–68.
With this in mind, Fay teaches a face mask comprising cuboid-shaped canisters, with each canister having a cuboid shape with curved side surfaces. See Fay Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 11–13. It would have been obvious to change the shape of the canister 50 (and therefore the sealing ring 74) of Meunier to have a cuboid shape with curved side surfaces because this would merely represent changing the shape of the device with no substantial change in function. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901 in view of Cuoco, US 2020/0281286 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Meunier teaches the limitations of claim 10, as explained above.
Meunier differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the gas mask comprising one exhalation filter comprising the filter of claim 1, and two inhalation filters comprising another filter according to claim 1, with the special configuration of the exhalation and inhalation filters as claimed.
But Cuoco teaches a respirator hood 500 comprising a “facepiece,” which is the front of the hood 500. See Cuoco Fig. 10, [0066]. The facepiece is provided with the respiratory cartridge 1000, which reads on the “exhalation filter.” Id. The facepiece is also provided with two respiratory cartridge supports 740 for two additional respirator cartridges. Id. The two respiratory cartridges in each support 740 read on the “two inhalation filters.” The cartridge 1000 (the “exhalation filter”) is arranged in the middle of a lower portion of the facepiece at the mouth position of a user, as seen in Fig. 10. The cartridges in each support 740 (the “inhalation filters”) are arranged on two sides of the facepiece and above the cartridge 1000 (the “exhalation filter”) in a vertical direction, as seen in Fig. 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
872
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the canister 50 of Meunier (including the filter 70) as the “exhalation filter” and “inhalation filters” of Cuoco, because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier, US 5,022,901 in view of Lau, US 2019/0217132 A1.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Meunier teaches that the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) is configured to be a cylinder. See Meunier Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 59–68. Also, the filter 70 comprises a “handle” which is a portion of the outer face 88 of the sealing ring 74 where a user could grip, as seen in Fig. 3.
Meunier differs from claim 22 because it is silent as to the filter medium 72 comprising a through hole.
But Lau teaches a filtering device 2 for a respirator comprising a plurality of fan-shaped filters 21 that are stacked in a cavity of the filtering device 2. See Lau Fig. 3, [0025]. The fan-shaped filters 21 comprise a through hole, which is the hole that post rod 22 is inserted into. Id. The construction of Lau is beneficial because the post rod 22 helps to secure the filters 21 in place within the cavity. Id. It would have been obvious to use the filters 21 of Lau as the filter medium 72 of Meunier to provide this benefit. With this modification, the through hole in the middle of the filters 21 would read on the “through hole.” The through hole is configured to receive post rod 22, which is a “pin.”
PNG
media_image4.png
634
773
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Meunier teaches the filter 70 comprises a retainer 78 which is separate from the sealing ring 74 (the “housing”) and is positioned radially inward from the sealing ring 74. See Meunier Fig. 4, col. 2, ll. 45–58. The retainer 78 is capable of functioning as a “handle” because it has structure that could be gripped by a user, as seen in Fig. 4. Note that when Meunier is modified to use the filters 21 of Lau as the filter material 72, the retainer 78 would remain because its function is to engage the sealing ring 74 above the filter material 72 to compress the sealing ring 74 against the inside wall of housing 54. Id.
Regarding claim 25, Meunier teaches that the retainer 78 (the “handle”) comprises a middle section, which reads on the “annular portion,” as seen in Fig. 2. The retainer 78 also has tab-like structure extending from the middle section, which reads on the “tab portion,” also seen in Fig. 2. The “tab portion” extends radially away from the middle section of the retainer 78, as seen in Fig. 2. In combination with Lau, the middle section of the retainer would extend around the through hole of Lau, because a hole would be located in the center of the middle portion of the retainer 78 to accommodate the rod 22 of Lau.
PNG
media_image5.png
1041
1379
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 1 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable over Meunier, asserting that the upper section 92 of the sealing ring 74 (the upper section 92 reads on the “ramp”) has a height that is greater than the width. See Applicant Rem. 7–8. The Applicant bases this assertion on the attorney’s annotated drawing of Fig. 3 of Meunier where the attorney has provided markings alleging that the height of the upper section 92 is greater than the width. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis. When the reference fails to disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to the dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See MPEP 2125, subsection II. Also, it is “well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue”). Id. Here, Meunier is silent about the dimensions of the upper section 92, and the drawings are not to scale. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that the upper section 92 of Meunier has a height greater than the width is unpersuasive because this argument is based on the measurement of drawing features, which is of little value since the precise proportions of Fig. 3 of Meunier are unavailable.
Conclusion
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