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 4/30/26. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-24 are presently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8 (species 4), 10 (species B) and 19-23 (Species 2) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/30/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1601 in fig. 16B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 12-13, 15 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a human” in line 6, suggested to be changed to --the human-- in order to refer back to the human previously recited.
Claim 1 recites “adjacent layers” in the last line, suggested to be changed to --adjacent layers of the three or more layers-- for consistency.
Claims 1 (last line), 3 and 4 recite “the airflow torture paths” suggested to be changed to --the plurality of airflow torture paths-- for consistency.
Claim 7 recites “adjacent layers” in the last line, suggested to be changed to --the adjacent layers of the three or more layers-- for consistency.
Claim 7 recites “LCP,” which is suggested to be spelled out.
Claim 7 recites “tortious” suggested to be changed to --tortuous-- to correct a spelling error.
Claim 12 recites “apertures” suggested to be changed to --the apertures-- in order to refer back to the apertures previously recited.
Claim 13 recites “layers the three” suggested to be changed to --layers of the three-- for grammatical reasons.
Claim 15 recites “airflow defining features” in line 3, suggested to be changed to --airflow path defining features-- for consistency.
Claim 24 recites “adjacent layer” in the last line, suggested to be changed to --the adjacent layer of the three or more layers of airflow path defining features-- 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 1-24 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 1 recites “therethrough” in lines 8 and 10, however it is unclear what structure this language is referring back to.
Claim 5 recite “in force” suggested to be changed to --enforced-- for clarity.
Claim 5 recites “the facepiece meets the N95 standard in force by the United States National Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH) on January 1, 2021” however it is unclear what the scope of the claims entail here. Further, the specification states that “Typical N95 masks are rated for 95% filtering of particles of 1 micron or smaller in size,” however this does not appear to be the N95 standard. The N95 standard are N95 masks that are rated for 95% filtering of particles of 0.3 micron or smaller in size. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of tortious passageways,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “the main body defining an interior cavity between the main body and the human's face,” which appears to positively claim the human’s face.
Claim 1 recites “the main body is held on the human's face,” which appears to positively claim the human’s face.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo et al. (2003/0010939) in view of Jolliffe (2019/0209966).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1 and 7 DeMeo discloses a facepiece 10 comprising: a main body 12 having a geometry configured to fit on a human face (Fig. 1) and cover the human's mouth and nose (Fig. 1), the main body defining an interior cavity between the main body and the human's face (Fig. 1); and one or more straps 14 extending from the main body and configured to extend around the ears or head of a human such that the main body is held on the human's face (Fig. 1), wherein the main body includes a filter [0046] defining a plurality of airflow torture paths (116, 118, 120) extending therethrough between the interior cavity and an external environment (Fig. 7 [0046]), wherein the filter includes two layers of airflow path defining features (110 and 112), each airflow path defining feature providing a passageway for air to pass therethrough (Fig. 7 [0046]), wherein the path defining features in adjacent layers are fluidly coupled but offset to form the airflow torture paths (Fig. 7 [0046]), but is silent regarding that the two layers are three or more layers. However, Jolliffe teaches three or more filtration layers with offset apertures [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeMeo’s two layers with three or more layers, as taught by Jolliffe, for the purpose of providing further filtration to the user.
Regarding claim 2, the modified DeMeo is silent regarding that each layer of the three or more layers of airflow path defining features is less than 50 microns thick (since the apertures 116, 118 and 120 are 2 microns across, then it can be seen from fig. 7 that the thickness of each layer is less than 50 microns. The thickness in figure 7 appears to be about 15 microns based on the 2 micron apertures).
Regarding claim 3, the modified DeMeo discloses that portions of the airflow torture paths are smaller than 5 microns across ([0029] pore size is 2 microns, DeMeo).
Regarding claim 4, the modified DeMeo discloses portions of the airflow torture paths are 2 microns, but is silent regarding that portions of the airflow torture paths are smaller than 1 micron across. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified DeMeo’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 6, the modified DeMeo the three or more layers includes ten or more layers of airflow path defining features disposed such that airflow path defining features in adjacent layers are fluidly coupled but offset to form the airflow torture paths (Fig. 11 Jolliffe).
Regarding claim 9, the modified DeMeo discloses that the filter encompasses more than half of the surface area of the monolithic structure (Fig 1 and 7, DeMeo).
Regarding claim 11, the modified DeMeo discloses that the airflow path defining features include apertures that are less than 25 microns across ([0029] DeMeo).
Regarding claim 12, the modified DeMeo discloses that 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo and Jolliffe, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Polignone (2021/308497).
Regarding claim 5, the modified DeMeo is silent regarding that the facepiece meets the N95 standard in force by the United States National Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH) on January 1, 2021. However, Polignone teaches a facepiece with offset apertures [0032] that meets the N95 standard in force by the United States National Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH) on January 1, 2021 [0032]. 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 facepiece with a facepiece that meets the N95 standard in force by the United States National Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH) on January 1, 2021, as taught by Polignone, for the purpose of providing further protection to the user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo and Jolliffe, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Huang et al. (2017/0361254).
Regarding claim 7, the modified DeMeo discloses that the filter is a portion of the monolithic structure defining the plurality of tortious passageways (Fig. 1 and 7 DeMeo), but is silent regarding that the main body is composed primarily of a monolithic structure of 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo and Jolliffe, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Crotty et al. (2020/0009409).
Regarding claim 13, the modified DeMeo is silent regarding that adjacent layers the three or more layers are bonded directly together. However, Crotty teaches that adjacent layers of three or more layers are bonded directly together [0042]. 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 three or more layers with bonding directly together at the peripheral edges, as taught by Crotty, for the purpose of providing an alternate attachment of layers having the predictable results of forming a mask body.
Regarding claim 14, the modified DeMeo is silent regarding that the filter includes a bond layer bonded between two or more adjacent layers of the three or more layers. However, Crotty teaches the filter includes a bond layer bonded between two or more adjacent layers of the three or more layers (adhesive bond layer [0042]). 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 three or more layers with adhesive bonding directly together at the peripheral edges, as taught by Crotty, for the purpose of providing an alternate attachment of layers having the predictable results of forming a mask body.
Regarding claim 15, the modified DeMeo is silent regarding that the filter includes that the three or more layers of airflow path defining features are unbonded in an area including the airflow path defining features and are secured together in an area outside of the airflow defining features. However, Crotty teaches that three or more layers of airflow path defining features are unbonded in an area including the airflow path defining features and are secured together in an area outside of the airflow defining features [0042]. 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 three or more layers with adhesive bonding together at the peripheral edges only, as taught by Crotty, for the purpose of providing an alternate attachment of layers having the predictable results of forming a mask body.
Claims 16, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo and Jolliffe, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Lin et al. (2013/0156949).
Regarding claim 16, the modified DeMeo 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 DeMeo’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 DeMeo 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.
Regarding claim 24, the modified DeMeo discloses that one or more layers of the three or more layers of airflow path defining features defines an anti-microbial surface (the copper or silver, [0022] Lin) aligned with the airflow path defining features of an adjacent layer such that airflow through the airflow path defining features of the adjacent layer 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]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMeo, Jolliffe and Lin, as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Finlay et al. (2009/0090197).
Regarding claim 17, the modified DeMeo 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, Finaly 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 DeMeo’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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Adams (2023/0132702) directed towards a mask having offset apertures, Welchel et al. (2009/0044809) directed towards a mask, Tuma et al. (2021/0291189) directed towards a filtration device with copper or silver and a heater.
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
Prosecution Insights