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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/2/25. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended and no claims have been added nor cancelled. As such, claims 1-5 are pending in the instant application.
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 1-5 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 the limitation "the clip body" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the language “the nose clip comprises: a clip body” (line 1-3) is unclear as claim 1 line 20 already sets forth a clip body and it is not clear if the language in claim 5 is intending to refer back to the same clip body in claim 1 or set forth an additional clip body.
Regarding claim 5, the language “the clip body” (line 4 and 4-5, two instances) is unclear because, as noted above, it is not known if this is referring back to the clip body set forth in claim 1 line 20 or the clip body in claim 5 line 3. It is not known how many clip bodies are present in the claimed invention and which, if plural exist, the language in line 4 and 4-5 is referring to.
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (2021/0379425) in view of Chao et al. (2016/0256715).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses a nostril covering device configured to be insertable into nostrils of a user (see Fig. 1A-B, abstract for example), the nostril covering device including a first nostril insert (see Fig. 1A-B showing two nostril inserts, the left or right being the first nostril insert and the other being the second, see para. 0017) including a first filter body to filter at least one pathogen from air moving therethrough (see Fig. 1A-B, filter body defined by elements 10 and 17, see para. 0018, 0021 for example), and a first flap cover movably disposed on at least a portion of the first filter body to cover the first filter body in response to the air moving from outside a boundary of the first flap cover toward the first filter body, and open at least partially away from the first filter body in response to the air moving from the first filter body toward outside the boundary of the first flap cover (see Fig. 1A-B, first flap cover 14, see para. 0018 and 0024); a second nostril insert (see Fig. 1A-B showing two nostril inserts, the other of the right or left insert being the second nostril insert, see para. 0017) including a second filter body to filter at least one pathogen from air moving therethrough (see Fig. 1A-B, filter body defined by elements 10 and 17, see para. 0018, 0021 for example), and a second flap cover movably disposed on at least a portion of the first filter body to cover the first filter body in response to the air moving from outside a boundary of the first flap cover toward the first filter body, and open at least partially away from the first filter body in response to the air moving from the first filter body toward outside the boundary of the first flap cover (see Fig. 1A-B, second flap cover 14 for the second insert, see para. 0018 and 0024); a nose clip configured to be attached to a nose of the user and connected to the first and second filter body to form a clamp therebetween (see Fig. 11A, nose clip 11, see para. 0017, nose clip 17 connects the two filter bodies and therefore clamps them together). Tran is silent as to the nose clip being removably connected to the two filter bodies to form a clamp therebetween and including a plurality of connection fasteners having cylindrical shapes and which are disposed at first and second ends of the clip body to connect the first and second filter bodies at only edge portions thereof; however, Chao teaches a similar nostril covering device which includes this feature (see Chao Fig. 1-3, 5, and 8-9, para. 0010, 0022, 0033, and 0051; nose clip 30 with clip body 34/35, and cylindrical shaped connection fasteners 32 and 321 which fit into recess 123 only at edge of nostril inserts as shown). Thus 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 Tran device’s nose clip to be removably connected to the filter bodies to form a clamp therebetween and including a plurality of insert connection fasteners, as taught by Chao, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and in order to provide the ability to remove and replace used filter bodies and to secure the device to the septum of the user (see Chao para. 0010 and 0051). See also MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Tran device is such that each of the first and second nostril inserts include an adjustment body to at least partially deform to adapt to the size of each nostril of the user (see Tran Fig. 1A-B, adjustment bodies 12, see para. 0018).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and Chao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carson (2022/0280817).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Tran device is silent as to the first and second filter bodies expanding to adapt to the size of each nostril of the user; however, Carson discloses a similar nostril covering device which includes this feature (see Carson Fig. 1-5 showing filter bodies, Fig. 6 showing two in use in the nostrils of the user, see para. 0008 and 0024). Thus 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 Tran device’s filter bodies to be adapted to expand to adapt to the size of each nostril, as taught by Carson, in order to provide a sealing engagement with the user’s nostrils (see Carson para. 0024).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and Chao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. (2015/0238785).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Tran device is silent as to each adjustment body of the first and second nostril inserts including a plurality of breathing apertures to facilitate movement of air therethrough; however, Chuang teaches a similar nostril covering device which includes this feature (see Chuang Fig. 1-4 for example, showing inner filtering element surrounded by adjustment body 121 which adapts to the size of the nostril, see para. 0021, and which includes plural breathing apertures 1211, see para. 0034). Thus 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 Tran device’s adjustment body to include plural breathing apertures, as taught by Chuang, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another (replacing adjustment body of modified Tran with Chuang’s) and one would expect the modified Tran device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and Chao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altadonna, Jr. (6,015,425).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Tran device’s nose clip includes a clip body (see Chao Fig. 8, nose clip 30 with clip body 34/35), but is silent as to including a textured edge disposed on at least a portion of an edge of the clip body to cushion the clip body against the nose; however, Altadonna teaches a similar nostril covering device which includes this feature (see Altadonna Fig. 4, textured surface 25, see col. 4 ln. 8-24). Thus 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 Tran device’s clip body to include a cushioned textured surface, as taught by Altadonna, in order to provide a more comfortable connection between the device and the user (see Altadonna col. 4 ln. 8-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785