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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/17/2025, has been entered, claims 1-6, 8-14 remain pending.
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, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue (GB2575985) in view of Carredo (US20210154610), further in view of Bergeron (WO2014172783), hereafter Bergeron.
Regarding Claim 1, Arigue discloses a respirator (Respirator shown in Fig. 1) comprising an outer housing (See Fig. A); a middle frame (See Fig. A, pg. 16 line 26, internal chassis 14), and; a facial seal (See Fig. A, pg. 16 line 26, facial seal 15) being connected to the middle frame (pg. 7, line 21-24, “the face seal is releasably mounted onto the housing”), and being fit to and forming a seal to a face of a user when the respirator is in use (pg. 7, line 12-20, “”The face seal comprises a brim, a front wall having an opening facing the mouth and nose of said wearer and a bridging section between the brim and the front wall, wherein the bridging section resiliently deforms when pressed against the wearer’s face…”); an integrated board (Fig. A, pg. 16 line 26, main frame 12), being arranged between the outer housing and the middle frame (See Fig. A), and being provided with a functional member for the respirator (pg. 17 line 1-4, “the integrated electronics of the smart mask (PCB) (not shown) is also clipped to the outer side of the internal chassis 14”);
PNG
media_image1.png
255
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, Adapted from Arigue Fig. 1
Arigue further discloses a filter being arranged at the outer housing (Fig. 1, filter 11), but is silent on the filter having a pleated structure.
However, Carredo teaches an air filter (Abstract), wherein the filter having a pleated structure (par. 0048, “The air filters are pleated, formed into numerous folds or otherwise shaped to increase the surface area to volume flow rate”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known respirator of Arigue, with the pleated filter structure of Carredo, to increase the surface area to volume flow rate and enhance the filtration efficiency as taught by Carredo (Carredo, par. 0048).
The modified Arigue is still silent on wherein the middle frame is formed of a first material having a first hardness, the integrated board is formed of a second material having a second hardness, and the second hardness is greater than the first hardness
However, Bergeron teaches a face mask (Fig. 1), comprising of a middle frame (face-engaging portion 20, Fig. 5B, the mask further includes a sealing surface 22 and frame 46, see Fig. 5B, therefore element 20 is a middle frame), and an integrated board (Fig. 2, support portion 24, element 24 is an integrated board for functional members such as breathing interface 16). Bergeron further teaches wherein the middle frame is formed of a first material having a first hardness, the integrated board is formed of a second material having a second hardness, and the second hardness is greater than the first hardness (pg. 44, “the face-engaging portion 20 of the facepiece 12, which engages the wearer's face, is made of the material M^ while the support portion 24 of the facepiece 12, which supports the visor 14, the breathing interface 16, and the hydration interface 38, is made of the material M.sub.2. In this example, the material Mi is (1) softer and/or more elastic and (2) denser than the material M.sub.2”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the mask of Arigue, with the mask of Bergeron, and have the integrated board formed with a harder material than the middle frame, for supporting the functional members with the integrated board and comfort for the user since the middle frame is closer to the user’s face, as taught by Bergeron (Bergeron, pg. 44).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein a connection between the integrated board and the middle frame is a tight connection (Arigue, pg. 7 line 7-8, “The housing may comprise a main frame and an internal chassis, the internal chassis being adapted to be releasably mounted onto the main frame”), and the middle frame is connected to the outer housing (Arigue, pg. 7, line 9-11, “Alternatively, the housing may only comprise a main frame. In either housing embodiment, the housing itself is further adapted to be releasably mounted onto the filter and the face seal”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses having the outer housing connected to the integrated board, and that the integrated board and the middle frame can be merged into one. In such configuration, the outer housing would necessarily be connected to the combined layer. The claimed configuration does not introduce any unexpected results or structural differences beyond what the prior art suggests, therefore, it would have been obvious to have the outer housing connected to the middle frame).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the middle frame is configured to be a frame provided with an accommodation portion in the middle, the integrated board being inserted in the accommodation portion (See Fig. B below).
Arigue does not specifically disclose an erect edge frame being provided at a peripheral edge of the integrated board, and a shape of the erect edge frame of the integrated board matching a shape of an edge of the accommodation portion of the middle frame.
PNG
media_image2.png
257
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B, adapted from Arigue Fig. 1
However, as shown in Fig. B, Arigue does have an erected edge on the peripheral edge of the middle frame, where the edge of the integrated board matches the edge of the integrated board and the accommodation portion. The claimed erected edge on the integrated board is the same as the edge on the middle frame of Arigue. The structure of matching shapes of the edges are the same. Such difference of shifting the erected edge structure to the integrated board is considered as a design choice as it does not alter the function of the overall structure. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to ensure the edge shapes match, regardless of where the erected edge is at. Matching edge shapes is a predictable design choice to algin with conventional design principles, and does not affect the functionality of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known respirator of Arigue, and to have an erected edge on the integrated board, and match the shape of the edge to the shape of the accommodation portion.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the functional member comprises at least one of a blower fan, a battery, and/or a PCB for the respirator (Arigue, Fig. 1, fan 13; pg. 12 line 1-2, “The housing of the filtering mask assembly may further comprise at least one integrated printed circuit board (PCB)”).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the respirator is configured to be an electric supplied-air respirator or a face mask (Arigue, pg. 1 line 6-9, “the invention relates to a filtering mask assembly configured to be placed over the mouth and nose of face of the wearer, to a fan for a filtering mask assembly and to a method of assembling a filtering mask assembly.”).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the facial seal is formed of silicone (Arigue, pg. 8, line 6).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 4, wherein the accommodation portion of the middle frame includes a passage for airflow therethrough (See Fig. B above, an open passage is defined by the middle frame allowing air to flow through).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 11, wherein the integrated board includes an aperture aligned with the passage of the accommodation portion of the middle frame (See Fig. A and B above, Arigue pg. 16 line 29, “The main frame 12 has one main opening in the centre to support the fan 13.”; an aperture is shown for air to flow through the fan and it aligns with the passage).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue in view of Carredo, in view of Bergeron, further in view of Daeffler et al. (US20210379411), hereafter Daeffler.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the middle frame is formed of TPU.
However, Daeffler teaches a respirator (Fig. 1, respirator 100), comprising of a frame (respirator body 110), wherein the frame is formed of TPU (par. 0070, “the compliance of the respirator body (110 or 410), especially the inner shell (220 and 230 or 520 and 530), is achieved through flexible 3D print media, using TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane)”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Arigue and use TPU for the middle frame as taught by Daeffler for the purpose of selecting a known material based on its suitability.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue, in view of Carredo, in view of Bergeron, further in view of Reekers (WO2021013663).
Regarding Claim 5, Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein the integrated board is bonded to the middle frame by a glue.
However, Reekers teaches a respirator, including plastic parts glued together (pg. 17 line 27-28, “The first and second rings 74, 76 may be a mechanical snap fit together, or glued together…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known respirator of Arigue, and use glue to bond the integrated board to the middle frame for secured bonding as taught by Reekers (Reekers, pg. 17 line 27-28).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue, in view of Carredo, in view of Bergeron, further in view of Yukinori (JP2004349596, machine translation accessed 2/12/25 relied upon herein).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the integrated board is formed of PA, PP, or ABS.
However, Yukinori teaches an integrated board formed of ABS (par. 0002, “For example, a circuit board to be mounted on a control unit… attached to an ABS housing as a base member). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Arigue and use ABS for the integrated board as taught by Yukinori for the purpose of selecting a known material based on its suitability.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue in view of Carredo, in view of Bergeron, in view of Daeffler, further in view of Yukinori.
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein: the first material comprises TPU; and the second material comprises PA, PP, or ABS.
However, However, Daeffler teaches a respirator (Fig. 1, respirator 100), comprising of a frame (respirator body 110), wherein the frame is formed of TPU (par. 0070, “the compliance of the respirator body (110 or 410), especially the inner shell (220 and 230 or 520 and 530), is achieved through flexible 3D print media, using TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane)”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Arigue and use TPU for the middle frame as taught by Daeffler for the purpose of selecting a known material based on its suitability.
The modified Arigue is still silent on the second material comprises PA, PP, or ABS.
However, Yukinori teaches an integrated board formed of ABS (par. 0002, “For example, a circuit board to be mounted on a control unit… attached to an ABS housing as a base member). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Arigue and use ABS for the integrated board as taught by Yukinori.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator of claim 13, wherein the facial seal is formed of silicone (Arigue, pg. 8, line 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 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 Bergeron. Specifically, Bergeron teaches a face mask having a softer middle frame material relative to a harder integrated board material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785