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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 04/13/2026, has been entered, claims 1-6, 8-15 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “an outer surface of the middle frame is oriented to face opposite of a sealing surface of the facial seal”, it is unclear which surface is the outer surface and which surface is the sealing surface, no definition is found in the applicant’s specification. For examination purposes, the outer surface of the middle frame will be interpreted as the surface facing the integrated board, and the sealing surface of the facial seal will be interpreted as the surface facing the user.
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 Judson (GB2566753).
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
283
562
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
However, Judson teaches a respirator (Fig. 2), comprising of a middle frame (Fig. 2, face seal 2 has a middle frame portion for mounting inhalation valve; pg. 10 line 10-12, “The orinasal 2 comprises a pair of intake apertures 30… An inhalation valve frame member 32 is moulded or otherwise mounted within each of the intake apertures 30”), and an integrated board (Fig. 2, connecting portion 24 is for integrating an exhalation port 22), wherein the middle frame is formed of a first material having a first hardness (pg. 7 line 5, “The orinasal 2 is formed of a flexible rubber material, such as Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU)”; TPU inherently has a hardness as a material property), the integrated board is formed of a second material having a second hardness (pg. 4 line 19, “The connecting portion may, for example, comprise a moulded hard polypropylene (PP) copolymer (or similar)”; polypropylene (PP) inherently has a hardness as a material property). 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 the known respirator of Arigue, with the respirator of Judson, and use a first material having a first hardness for the middle frame and a second material having a second hardness for the integrated board as taught by Judson.
The modified Arigue further discloses the facial seal is formed of a third material having a third hardness (Arigue, pg. 8, line 5, “Preferably or alternatively, the face seal is made of an elastomer, such as silicone”; silicone inherently has a hardness as a material property), the first hardness being greater than the third hardness (Judson, pg. 7 line 5; Arigue, pg. 8, line 5; TPU has a greater hardness than silicone), and the second hardness is greater than the first hardness (Judson, pg. 7 line 5, pg. 4 line 19; PP has a greater hardness than TPU).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the middle frame is formed of TPU (Judson, pg. 7 line 5, “The orinasal 2 is formed of a flexible rubber material, such as Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU)”).
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 5, “Preferably or alternatively, the face seal is made of an elastomer, such as silicone”).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein the integrated board is formed of PA, PP, or ABS (Judson, pg. 4 line 19, “The connecting portion may, for example, comprise a moulded hard polypropylene (PP) copolymer (or similar)”).
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).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator according to claim 1, wherein: the first material comprises TPU (Judson, pg. 7 line 5, “The orinasal 2 is formed of a flexible rubber material, such as Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU)”); and the second material comprises PA, PP, or ABS (Judson, pg. 4 line 19, “The connecting portion may, for example, comprise a moulded hard polypropylene (PP) copolymer (or similar)”).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator of claim 13, wherein the facial seal is formed of silicone (Arigue, pg. 8, line 5, “Preferably or alternatively, the face seal is made of an elastomer, such as silicone”).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Arigue discloses the respirator of claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the middle frame is oriented to face opposite of a sealing surface of the facial seal (See Fig. A, annotated above, an outer surface of the middle frame facing left of the figure is opposite to a sealing surface of the facial seal facing right of the figure).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arigue, in view of Carredo, in view of Judson, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Judson. Specifically, Judson teaches a middle frame formed with TPU and an integrated board formed with PP.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights