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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 8/18/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 19 and 24 have been amended, claims 5, 13 and 15 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14 and 16-24 are presently pending in the application. Claims 8, 10 and 19-23 remain withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, claim 11, lines 1-2, claim 12, line 1, claim 24 (2 places in line 3 and line 4) recites “the apertures” in line 13 suggested to be changed to --the plurality of apertures-- for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 16-18 are 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 6 recites “such that apertures” however it is unclear if applicant is referring back to the plurality of apertures of claim 1, or introducing new and different apertures.
Claim 16 recites “of the apertures” however it is unclear which apertures applicant is referring back to. Is applicant referring back to all of the apertures of each layer? Clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites “in adjacent apertures” however it is unclear if applicant is referring back to the plurality of apertures of claim 1, or introducing new and different apertures.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Polignone (2021/0308497).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 3b Polignone discloses a facepiece 110 comprising: a main body (formed by layers 111, 112 and 113) having a geometry configured to fit on a human face (Fig. 4a) and cover the human's mouth and nose (Fig. 4a), the main body defining a concave region configured to form an interior cavity between the main body and the human's face (Fig. 4a, the mask is concave on the user’s face, which forms an interior cavity); and one or more straps (14, see fig. 1) extending from the main body and configured to extend around the ears or head of the human and hold the main body on the human's face (Fig. 4a), wherein the main body includes a filter [0022] defining a plurality of airflow torture paths (formed through opening 114 [0023]) extending through the filter between the interior cavity and an external environment (Fig. 3b [0022-0023]), wherein the filter includes three or more layers (111, 112, 113 [0022]) of thermoplastic polymer (PLA [0031]), wherein the three or more layers are bonded together to form a monolithic structure (layer of adhesive between the filter layers [0036]), each layer of the three or more layers defining a plurality of apertures 114 extending from one side of that layer to the reverse side of that layer (Fig. 3b), wherein the apertures in adjacent layers of the three or more layers are fluidly coupled but offset to form the plurality of airflow torture paths (Fig. 3b [0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Polignone discloses that the three or more layers includes ten or more layers of thermoplastic polymer ([0025] indefinitely number of layers) disposed such that apertures in adjacent layers of the ten or more layers of thermoplastic polymer are fluidly coupled but offset to form the airflow torture paths [0025].
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Welchel et al. (2009/0044809).
Regarding claim 2, Polignone is silent regarding that each layer of the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer is less than 50 microns thick. However, Welchel teaches layers of a mask being less than 50 microns thick [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polignone’s layers with a thickness less than 50 microns, as taught by Welchel, for the purpose of providing an alternate thickness of layers having the predictable result of providing filtration protection to the user.
Claims 3-4, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of DeMeo et al. (2003/0010939).
Regarding claim 3, Polignone is silent regarding that portions of the plurality of airflow torture paths are smaller than 5 microns across. However, DeMeo teaches a plurality of airflow torture paths are smaller than 5 microns across ([0029] pore size is 2 microns, DeMeo). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polignone’s plurality of airflow torture path sizes with being smaller than 5 microns across, as taught by DeMeo, for the purpose of providing an alternate path size having the predictable result of providing filtration protection to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Polignone is silent regarding that portions of the plurality of airflow torture paths are smaller than 1 microns across. DeMeo teaches a plurality of airflow torture paths are 2 microns across ([0029] pore size is 2 microns, DeMeo), however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Polignone’s portions of the airflow torture paths to be smaller than 1 micron across, 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, and it appears that portions of the airflow torture paths less than 1 micron across would perform equally as well at filtering out particulates when soaked or dipped in a premade solution ([0029] DeMeo). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Polignone is silent regarding that apertures in the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer are less than 25 microns across. However, DeMeo teaches apertures in the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer are less than 25 microns across ([0029] pore size is 2 microns, DeMeo). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polignone’s plurality of airflow torture path sizes with being smaller than 25 microns across, as taught by DeMeo, for the purpose of providing an alternate path size having the predictable result of providing filtration protection to the user.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Polignone discloses that the apertures within each layer of the three or more layers are less than 100 microns apart from other apertures in their own layer (if apertures are only 2 microns [0029], then it can be seen in figure 7 that the distance between apertures of the same layers are less than 100 microns apart, DeMeo, fig. 3a Polignone).
Regarding claim 14, Polignone discloses that the filter includes a bond layer (layer of adhesive between the filter layers [0036]) bonded between two or more adjacent layers of the three or more layers.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Huang et al. (2017/0361254).
Regarding claim 7, Polignone discloses that the filter is a portion of the monolithic structure defining the plurality of airflow torture paths (through 114 Polignone), but is silent regarding that the main body is composed primarily of a monolithic structure of liquid crystal polymer (LCP). However, Huang teaches a main body is composed primarily of a monolithic structure of LCP [0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified DeMeo’s main body material with LCP, as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing fan alternate main body material having the predictable results of filtering particulates.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Polignone discloses that the filter encompasses more than half of the surface area of the main body (Fig 3a and 4, Polignone).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone and DeMeo, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Lin et al. (2013/0156949).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Polignone is silent regarding that the filter includes one or more of copper and silver plating on an interior surface of the apertures. However, in fig. 1-2 Lin teaches a filter that includes one or more of copper and silver plating on an interior surface of the apertures [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Polignone’s apertures and layers with the addition of copper or silver plating, as taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing further filtration.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Polignone discloses that the filter includes circuit traces (portions of copper or silver that extend between apertures, connecting the apertures, fig. 1 Lin) electrically coupling plating in adjacent apertures together.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone, DeMeo and Lin, as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Finlay et al. (2009/0090197).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Polignone discloses that the filter includes circuit traces (portions of copper or silver that extend between apertures, connecting the apertures, fig. 1 Lin), but is silent regarding that the filter includes circuit traces electrically coupling the one or more copper and silver plating to a power source. However, Finlay teaches a filter ([0028] dust filter) that includes circuit traces (metal mesh [0028]) electrically coupling the one or more copper and silver plating to a power source (electrical current source [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Polignone’s filter with the addition of a power source, as taught by Finlay, for the purpose of providing heat to the filter providing desorption of contaminants ([0063] Finlay).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polignone, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lin et al. (2013/0156949).
Regarding claim 24, Polignone is silent regarding that one or more layers of the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer defines an anti-microbial surface aligned with the apertures of an adjacent layer such that airflow through the apertures of the adjacent layer of the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer is incident on the anti-microbial surface, wherein the anti-microbial surface has one of a copper or silver plating thereon. However, in fig. 1-2 Lin teaches one or more layers of the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer defines an anti-microbial surface (the copper or silver, [0022] Lin) aligned with the apertures of an adjacent layer such that airflow through the apertures of the adjacent layer of the three or more layers of thermoplastic polymer is incident on the anti-microbial surface (Fig. 1 Lin), wherein the anti-microbial surface has one of a copper or silver plating thereon (Fig. 1, Lin, [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polignone’s apertures and layers with the addition of copper or silver plating, as taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing further filtration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 8/18/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo et al. (2003/0010939) in view of Jolliffe (2019/0209966) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Polignone (2021/308497).
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 RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
