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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 5-9, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizandari (US 2021/0330853).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Mizandari discloses a respirator (400) comprising:
a mouth piece (460) configured to be sealingly joined to a face of a user and enclose a mouth and a nose of the user, the mouth piece having at least one interface channel (451), such that air passage from outside the mouthpiece to the user' mouth and nose is only allowed via the at least one interface channel (see Abstract; paras. [0020]; [0081]-[0089]; Figs. 4-9);
at least one lamp mount chamber (490, 491) sealingly joined to and in fluid communication with the mouth piece via the at least one interface channel (451), the lamp mount chamber (490, 491) having at least one opening (411) configured to enable air passage from outside the lamp mount chamber into the lamp mount chamber, such that air reaching the user's mouth and nose from outside the respirator flows through the at least one opening into the lamp mount chamber, and from the lamp mount chamber into the mouth piece via the interface channel (see paras. [0081]-[0089]; Figs. 4-9);
at least one UV lamp (425) enclosed in the lamp mount chamber (490, 491), the UV lamp being configured to emit UV light and expose to the UV light the air traveling from outside the respirator to the mouth piece, thereby sterilizing the air (see paras. [0081]-[0089]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the at least one UV lamp (425) is configured to emit the UV light with wavelengths in a range of 254 nm to 300 nm which falls within the range as claimed by applicant (see paras. [0015]; [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator further comprises a power storage unit (471) configured to store electrical energy, the power storage unit being electrically connected to the at least one UV lamp (425) and to power the at least one UV lamp (see para. [0088]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator, wherein the at least one lamp mount chamber (490, 491) is removably joined to the at least one interface channel (451) (see paras. [0088]; [0094]; Figs. 4, 7, 8).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator, wherein: the at least one interface channel comprises one interface channel (451) extending forward from a front of the mount piece; the at least one lamp mount chamber comprises one lamp mount chamber (490, 491) (see paras. [0081]-[0089]; Figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator, wherein: the at least one UV lamp (425) is ring shaped and surrounds an entrance from the lamp mount chamber (490, 491) to the interface channel (451) (see paras. [0085]-[0086]; Figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator, wherein: an opening (411) is located on a front of the one lamp mount chamber (490, 491) (see para. [0083]; Figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the lamp mount chamber comprises: a chamber body (490, 491); a UV shielding cover (410) covering the front of the chamber body to form the lamp mount chamber; a cover holder integral with the chamber body (490, 491) and configured to hold the shielding cover (410) while maintaining a gap between the UV shielding cover and the chamber body to form the opening (411) of the lamp mount chamber (see para. [0083]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Mizandari discloses that the respirator may further comprise a transparent face mask configured to sealingly cover eyes of the user (see para. [0149]).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the face mask is integral with the mouth piece (see para. [0149]).
Regarding claim 17, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the face mask is a discrete unit separate from the mouth piece (see para. [0150]).
Regarding claim 18, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the respirator is shaped to reduce passage of the UV light from the lamp mount chamber (490, 491) into the mouth piece (see paras. [0083]-[0089]; Figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 19, the reference Mizandari discloses the respirator, wherein the respirator is shaped to eliminate passage of the UV light from the lamp mount chamber (490, 491) into the mouth piece (see paras. [0083]-[0089]; Figs. 4-9).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Eleid (US 2021/0322798).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Eleid discloses a respirator comprising:
a mouth piece (120) configured to be sealingly joined to a face of a user and enclose a mouth and a nose of the user, the mouth piece having at least one interface channel, such that air passage from outside the mouthpiece to the user' mouth and nose is only allowed via the at least one interface channel (see paras. [0013]; [0020]; [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4);
at least one lamp mount chamber (100) sealingly joined to and in fluid communication with the mouth piece via the at least one interface channel, the lamp mount chamber having at least one opening (102) configured to enable air passage from outside the lamp mount chamber into the lamp mount chamber, such that air reaching the user's mouth and nose from outside the respirator flows through the at least one opening into the lamp mount chamber, and from the lamp mount chamber into the mouth piece via the interface channel (see paras. [0013]; [0020]; [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4);
at least one UV lamp (104) enclosed in the lamp mount chamber, the UV lamp being configured to emit UV light and expose to the UV light the air traveling from outside the respirator to the mouth piece, thereby sterilizing the air (see paras. [0013]; [0020]; [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Eleid teaches that the at least one UV lamp (104) is configured to emit ultraviolet light, which encompasses a wavelength between 220 and 320 nm (see paras. [0005]; [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, the reference Eleid discloses that the respirator comprises a power storage unit (108) configured to store electrical energy, the power storage unit being electrically connected to the at least one UV lamp (104) and to power the at least one UV lamp (see para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein the at least one lamp mount chamber is removably joined to the at least one interface channel (see para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein: the at least one interface channel comprises one interface channel extending forward from a front of the mount piece; the at least one lamp mount chamber (100) comprises one lamp mount chamber (100) (see paras. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein: an opening (102) is located on a front of the one lamp mount chamber (100) (paras. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein the lamp mount chamber (100) comprises: a chamber body; a UV shielding cover covering the front of the chamber body to form the lamp mount chamber; a cover holder (118) integral with the chamber body and configured to hold the shielding cover while maintaining a gap between the UV shielding cover and the chamber body to form the opening (102) of the lamp mount chamber (see para. [0027]-[0028]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein: the at least one interface channel comprises two interface channels extending laterally from the mount piece (120); the at least one lamp mount chamber comprises two lamp mount chambers (100), each of the lamp mount chambers (100) joined to a corresponding one of the two interface channels; the at least one UV lamp comprises two UV lamps (104), each of the two UV lamps being enclosed by a corresponding one of the two lamp mount chambers (100) (see paras. [0020]; [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Eleid discloses that the respirator may further comprise a transparent face mask configured to sealingly cover eyes of the user (see para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein the face mask is integral with the mouth piece (see para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein the respirator is shaped to reduce passage of the UV light from the lamp mount chamber into the mouth piece (see paras. [0026]-[0027]; Figs 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 19, the reference Eleid discloses the respirator, wherein the respirator is shaped to eliminate passage of the UV light from the lamp mount chamber into the mouth piece (see paras. [0026]-[0027]; Figs 2 and 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizandari or Eleid as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Li (US 2015/0303722).
Regarding claim 4, the references Mizandari and Eleid do not specifically disclose wherein the power storage unit is configured to store 8,000 to 12,000 mAh. The reference Li teaches a mobile power storage device configured to store 8,000 to 12,000 mAh (see Abstract; paras. [0032]-[0036]; Figs. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mobile power storage device taught by Li as the power storage unit of Mizandari or Eleid, since the reference Li teaches that the disclosed power storage unit provides for a battery capacity enough for long-term usage (see [0002]; [0003]; [0036]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eleid as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of First et al. (US 2009/0117000).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Eleid does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one UV lamp is arc shaped or ring shaped and surrounds an entrance from the lamp mount chamber to the interface channel. However, as evidenced by the reference First et al. (see para. [0040]), UV lamps of diverse sizes and shapes including linear, circular, curved, semi-circular, or U-shaped lamps may suitably be utilized for sterilizing air in an air sterilization device. The reference First et al. further teaches that two semi-circular UVC lamps can be arranged to surround an air passage such that the air flows across the UVC lamp irradiation field (see para. [0040]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange one or more arc shaped or ring shaped UV lamps as claimed by applicant within the lamp mount chamber of Eleid because, as evidenced by the reference First et al. (see para. [0040]), it is typical in the art to utilize UV lamps of diverse sizes and shapes including linear, circular, curved, semi-circular, or U-shaped lamps for sterilizing air in an air sterilization device.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eleid as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ross (US 2008/0067418).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Eleid does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one UV lamp is further configured to emit visible light when on and wherein the UV shielding cover is configured to absorb at least some of the UV light and is transparent to at least some of the visible light. The reference Ross teaches a UV sterilization apparatus for sterilizing objects. The apparatus includes: a housing (102) for enveloping an object inside the housing; a closure element (104) attached to the housing; and an ultraviolet light source (106) attached to an internal surface of the housing or an internal surface of the closure element for sterilizing the object enclosed inside the housing by transmitting ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation towards the object (see Abstract; para. [0020]; Fig. 1A). The reference Ross further teaches that the housing and the closure element can be composed of a material that prevents transmission of electromagnetic radiation in the UV range but allows transmission of visible light to allow a user to see through the closure or the housing (see para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Ross, to modify the at least one lamp mount chamber of Eleid to similarly include UV shielding cover composed of a material that prevents transmission of electromagnetic radiation in the UV range but allows transmission of visible light as well as have the UV light configured to emit visible light so as to allow a user to see through the UV shielding cover.
Regarding claim 12, the reference Eleid discloses that the respirator may comprise two interface channels extending laterally from the mount piece (120); two lamp mount chambers (100), each of the lamp mount chambers (100) joined to a corresponding one of the two interface channels; and two UV lamps (104), each of the two UV lamps being enclosed by a corresponding one of the two lamp mount chambers (100) (see paras. [0020]; [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 2 and 4), wherein each of the two lamp mount chambers (100) comprises: a chamber body; a UV shielding cover covering the front of the chamber body to form the lamp mount chamber (100); a cover holder (118) integral with the chamber body and configured to hold the shielding cover while maintaining a gap between the UV shielding cover and the chamber body to form the opening (102) of the lamp mount chamber (see para. [0027]-[0028]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Eleid does not specifically disclose wherein the UV shielding cover is configured to absorb at least some of the UV light and is transparent to at least some of the visible light. The reference Ross teaches a UV sterilization apparatus for sterilizing objects. The apparatus includes: a housing (102) for enveloping an object inside the housing; a closure element (104) attached to the housing; and an ultraviolet light source (106) attached to an internal surface of the housing or an internal surface of the closure element for sterilizing the object enclosed inside the housing by transmitting ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation towards the object (see Abstract; para. [0020]; Fig. 1A). The reference Ross further teaches that the housing and the closure element can be composed of a material that prevents transmission of electromagnetic radiation in the UV range but allows transmission of visible light to allow a user to see through the closure or the housing (see para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Ross, to modify the at least one lamp mount chamber of Eleid to similarly include UV shielding cover composed of a material that prevents transmission of electromagnetic radiation in the UV range but allows transmission of visible light as well as have the UV light configured to emit visible light so as to allow a user to see through the UV shielding cover.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eleid as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of First et al. (US 2009/0117000).
Regarding claim 14, the reference Eleid does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the two UV lamp is U-shaped. However, as evidenced by the reference First et al., UV lamps of diverse sizes and shapes including linear, circular, curved, semi-circular, or U-shaped lamps may suitably be utilized for sterilizing air in an air sterilization device (see para. [0040]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange U-shaped UV lamp as claimed by applicant within the lamp mount chamber of Eleid because, as evidenced by the reference First et al., it is typical in the art to utilize UV lamps of diverse sizes and shapes including linear, circular, curved, semi-circular, or U-shaped lamps for sterilizing air in an air sterilization device (see para. [0040]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eleid as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fabin (US 2002/0092522).
Regarding claim 17, the reference Eleid does not specifically disclose wherein the face mask is a discrete unit separate from the mouth piece. The reference Fabin teaches a modular respirator comprising a face mask and a mouth piece, wherein the face mask is a discrete unit separate from the mouth piece (see Abstract; paras. [0011]; [0035]; Fig. 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the face mask suggested in the reference Eleid as a discrete unit separate from the mouth piece because as taught by the reference Fabin such a provision advantageously provides for modularity and interchangeability of the respirator which allows the respirator to be converted from a full facepiece respirator to a half-face mask (see Abstract; paras. [0011]; [0035]; Fig. 5).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizandari or Eleid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2016/0001108).
Regarding claim 20, the references Mizandari and Eleid are silent with respect to their respective respirator comprising an ultraviolet sterilization unit which emits light at a wavelength of 253.7 nm and at an intensity of at least 2000 µW/cm2. However, as evidenced by the reference Zhou et al. (see paras. [0030]-[0033]; [0036]-[0047]; Figs. 2-7), it is known in the art to incorporate an ultraviolet sterilization unit which emits UVC light (i.e., light encompasses a wavelength of 253.7 nm) with an intensity of at least 6x106 µW/cm2 into a respirator or facemask to achieve 99% sterilization efficiency of air inhaled or exhaled through an airflow path defined within the respirator or facemask under dynamic respiratory condition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respirator of Mizandari or Eleid to include an ultraviolet sterilization unit as taught by Zhou et al., and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed respirator 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 14 November 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 15-19 based upon Mizandari under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) and the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 based upon Eleid under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as set forth in the last Office action because: It refer(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
The declarant states that the experimental data presented in the declaration demonstrates that the prior art references cited in the Office action fail to teach or suggest the critical parameters and design features claimed in the application. However, the critical parameters and design features which the declarant relies on are not recited in the rejected claims.
For example, the declarant, in Section 4.2 of the Declaration, states that LED-based UVC sources inherently suffer from wavelength precision limitations, and that the LED-based UVC sources exhibit broader spectral emissions and wavelength drift, which reduces their germicidal effectiveness compared to mercury-based sources that emit at the optimal wavelength with greater precision. However, the rejected claims do not exclude LED-based UV lamps.
The declarant, in Section 5 of the Declaration, also states that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the specific wavelength precision, fluence rate thresholds, or device geometries necessary for effective sterilization under the claimed operational conditions. However, the specific wavelength precision, fluence rate thresholds, or device geometries that the declarant deemed necessary for effective sterilization are not specified in the rejected claims.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP § 2131.04.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 14 November 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 20 based upon Mizandari or Eleid in view of Zhou et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: It include(s) statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
The declarant, in Section 4.1 of the Declaration, states that dynamic respiratory airflow within the normal human breathing rhythm range (12-30 breaths per minute) requires a fluence rate of approximately 3000 µW/cm2 to achieve reliable airborne sterilization. The declarant also state that commercial UVC LED sources typically emit only about 20 µW/cm2, which provides virtually no sterilization effect in either static or dynamic airflow.
However, according to the reference Zhou et al. (see para. [0037]), current state-of-the-art UVC LED lamps may emit UVC light at a surface intensity of at least 6x106 µW/cm2. The reference Zhou et al. further teaches that these UVC LED lamps are ideal for incorporation into a breathing apparatus (25) such as a respirator or facemask (30) to achieve 99% sterilization efficiency of air inhaled or exhaled through an airflow path defined within the respirator or facemask under dynamic respiratory conditions (e.g., a respiratory condition where a human is breathing at rest through the respirator or facemask) (see paras. [0030]-[0033]; [0036]-[0048]; Figs. 2-8).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 14 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the reference Eleid is generally concerned with LED-based UVC sources which inherently suffer from wavelength precision limitations. Applicant also argues that the typical emission intensity of commercial UVC LEDs is only about 20 µW/cm2, which provides virtually no sterilization effect in either static or dynamic airflow (see Remarks, pages 7-8).
However, the claims do not exclude the use of UV LED lamps. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “at least one UV lamp” as recited in claim 1 clearly reads on the UV LED lamps suggested in the reference Eleid (see para. [0023]). Furthermore, although the reference Eleid states that the preferred UV light bulbs are LED UV light bulbs because they are lightweight and have higher operating efficiencies, the reference Eleid nevertheless makes clear that any appropriately sized UV light bulb which allow a user to wear the respiration device without discomfort may suitably be used (see para. [0023]). Thus, the examiner asserts that the reference Eleid meets each and every element the respirator set forth in claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
the reference Zhou et al. (see para. [0037]) teaches that current state-of-the-art UVC LED lamps may emit UVC light at a surface intensity of at least 6x106 µW/cm2 (see para. [0037]. The reference Zhou et al. further teaches that at such high intensity, 1 millisecond of exposure time may be sufficient to kill 99% of a typical influenza-A virus (see paras. [0038]; [0048]). The reference Zhou et al. further teaches that the disinfection rate may be further improved by using multiple UV LEDs (see para. [0038]). The reference Zhou et al. further teaches that these UVC LED lamps are ideal for incorporation into a breathing apparatus (25) such as a respirator or facemask (30) to achieve 99% sterilization efficiency of air inhaled or exhaled through an airflow path defined within the respirator or facemask under dynamic respiratory conditions (e.g., a respiratory condition where a human is breathing at rest through the respirator or facemask) (see paras. [0030]-[0033]; [0036]-[0048]; Figs. 2-7). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respirator of Mizandari or Eleid to include an ultraviolet sterilization unit as taught by Zhou et al., and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed respirator, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774