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 9/3/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-7 and 10-20 have been amended, claim 8 has been canceled, and new claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-21 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “air treatment” in line 5, suggested to be changed to --an air treatment-- to provide proper grammar.
Claim 19 recites “the air treatment supply” suggested to be changed to --the air treatment apparatus-- 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “the top housing portion” and “the bottom housing portion,” which lack proper antecedent basis.
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 1, 3-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Mercurio (3,457,917) and Collazo (2021/0170132).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 3-6 Jerasi discloses an intranasal air purification apparatus for insertion into a nostril comprising: a housing 16; air treatment assembly including a fan for actively moving air through the housing (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4), a power supply (battery 24 [0055][0059] Fig. 4) for powering the air treatment assembly, but is silent regarding a top housing portion releasably connectable to a bottom housing portion defining an interior space and a filtration filter to remove impurities from the air. However, in fig. 2 Mercurio teaches a top housing portion 12 that releasably connectable to a bottom housing portion 14 (via 28 and 36) defining an interior space and a filtration filter 22 to remove impurities from the air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with a top and bottom housing portion that are releasably connectable as well as a filter in the upper housing portion, as taught by Mercurio, for the purpose of easy replacement of the filter material (Col. 2, ll. 31-34, Mercurio). The modified Jerasi is silent regarding a nose plug fixedly attached to the housing. However, in fig. 2A-2C Collazo teaches a nose plug 206 fixedly attached to a housing 202. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a nose plug, as taught by Collazo, for the purpose of providing a seal to the nostril ([0022] Collazo).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Jerasi discloses that the bottom housing portion includes a plurality of housing inlets positioned about a proximal end of the bottom housing portion (inlet to porous filter 30, Mercurio).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Jerasi discloses that the top housing portion includes fasteners (28 Mercurio) for operatively engaging cooperating fasteners (36 Mercurio) at the bottom housing portion.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Jerasi discloses that the nose plug houses the top housing portion (Fig. 2A-2C Collazo).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the power supply comprises: a battery charger configured to receive external power from an external power source, condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery, and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment assembly. However, Wu teaches a battery charger 13 configured to receive external power from an external power source (13 receives power from the sun to charge batteries 172 [0020] Wu), condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery (batteries 172 are charged by 13 [0020] Wu), and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment assembly ([0020] the power from 13 is stored in batteries 172 for use by 2 and 3 Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s power supply with the addition of a battery charger, as taught by Wu, for the purpose of charging the battery for further use.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bingold et al. (2021/0402045).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a germicidal sterilizer. However, in fig. 4 Bingold teaches an intranasal air purification apparatus including a germicidal sterilizer ([0064] UVC light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s apparatus with the addition of a germicidal sterilizer, as taught by Bingold, for the purpose of providing further protection to a user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises an aroma reservoir for holding an aromatic material having an aroma. However, Tran teaches an aroma reservoir for holding an aromatic material having an aroma (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of an aroma reservoir, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the filtration filter comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter or activated carbon. However, Wu teaches a filter that comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter ([0020] Wu) and activated carbon ([0020] Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s filter with a HEPA filter and activated carbon, as taught by Wu, for the purpose of providing further filtration for the user.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a case to receive at least part of the housing; and wherein the housing is removably stored by the case. However, in fig. 4A-4B 3Palmeri discloses a case 400 to receive at least part of the housing (structure housed within 400); and wherein the housing is removably stored by the case (Fig. 4A-4B [0040-0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jerasi’s apparatus with the addition of a case, as taught by 3Palmeri, for the purpose of providing sterilization and wireless charging ([0041] 3Palmeri).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Jerasi discloses that the case comprises electrical contacts (on 406 [0041] 3Palmeri) to interface with the power component ([0041] 3Palmeri); and wherein the power component further comprises a battery to reversibly store the electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment components ([0041] Palmeri, 172 Wu).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sokol et al. (2020/0139165).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a sensor to detect a condition of the air within the housing. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a sensor 114 to detect a condition of the air with the housing [0083][0124][0168]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a sensor, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Collazo (2021/0170132).
Regarding claim 12, in fig. 3-6 Jerasi discloses nostril plug assembly comprising: a housing 16; an air treatment assembly housed within the housing (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4), a power supply (battery 24 [0055][0059] Fig. 4) located substantially within the housing for providing electrical power to the air treatment assembly [0055], but is silent regarding a nose plug frictionally engaged with and circumscribing the housing. However, in fig. 2A-2C Collazo teaches a nose plug 206 frictionally engaged with and circumscribing a housing (202 detachably engaged, there must be some amount of friction between the nose plug and the housing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a nose plug, as taught by Collazo, for the purpose of providing a seal to the nostril ([0022] Collazo).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi and Collazo, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Ellis (6,561,188).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Jerasi discloses that the air treatment assembly further comprises a fan for actively moving the air (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4 Jerasi), but is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises a filter to remove impurities from the air. However, in fig. 10B Ellis teaches a filter to remove impurities from the air (see insertable filter in fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of a filter, as taught by Ellis, for the purpose of preventing inhalation of contaminates (Col. 4, ll. 42-44, Col. 6, ll. 25-27 Ellis).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi and Collazo, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Mercurio (3,457,917).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a top housing portion
that includes detents for operatively engaging cooperating detents in a bottom housing portion. However, in fig. 2 Mercurio teaches a top housing portion 12 that includes detents 28 for operatively engaging cooperating detents 36 in a bottom housing portion 14 and a filter 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with a top and bottom housing portion that are detachable via detents as well as a filter in the upper housing portion, as taught by Mercurio, for the purpose of easy replacement of the filter material (Col. 2, ll. 31-34, Mercurio).
Claims 15 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi and Collazo, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Jerasi discloses that the power component further comprises: a battery (24 Jerasi) to reversibly store the electrical power; power delivery electronics to transmit the electrical power from the battery to the air treatment components ([0055] Jerasi); but is silent regarding battery charging electronics to receive external power from an external power source, condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery, and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment components as the electrical power. However, in fig. 4A-4B 3Palmeri teaches charging electronics to receive external power from an external power source (wireless charging in 406 [0041]), condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery [0041], and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment components as the electrical power [0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nostril plug assembly with the addition of a charging case, as taught by 3Palmeri, for the purpose of recharging the battery as needed.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a case to receive at least part of the housing; and wherein the housing is removably stored by the case. However, in fig. 4A-4B 3Palmeri discloses a case 400 to receive at least part of the housing (structure housed within 400); and wherein the housing is removably stored by the case (Fig. 4A-4B [0040-0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nostril plug assembly with the addition of a case, as taught by 3Palmeri, for the purpose of providing sterilization and wireless charging ([0041] 3Palmeri).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Jerasi discloses that the case comprises electrical contacts (on 406 [0041] 3Palmeri) to interface with the power supply ([0041] 3Palmeri); and wherein the power supply further comprises a battery to store the electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment supply ([0041] Palmeri, 172 Wu).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi and Collazo, applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises: an aroma reservoir for holding an aromatic material having an aroma. However, Tran teaches an aroma reservoir (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]) for holding an aromatic material having an aroma [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of an aroma reservoir, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Ellis, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter and a carbon filter. However, Wu teaches a filter that comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter ([0020] Wu) and a carbon filter ([0020] Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s filter with a HEPA filter and a carbon fitler, as taught by Wu, for the purpose of providing further filtration for the user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi and Collazo, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Sokol et al. (2020/0139165).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a sensor to detect a condition of the air. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a sensor 114 to detect a condition of the air [0083][0124]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nostril plug assembly with the addition of a sensor, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,293. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 1 is broader than the copending claim 1 (copending claim 1 recites a nose plug base, which is not found in the instant claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 is aligned with copending claim 2.
Claim 3 is aligned with copending claim 3.
Claim 4 is aligned with copending claim 4.
Claim 5 is aligned with copending claim 5.
Claim 6 is aligned with copending claim 6.
Claim 7 is aligned with copending claim 7.
Claim 9 is aligned with copending claim 10.
Claim 10 is aligned with copending claim 10.
Claim 11 is aligned with copending claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 9/3/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under Wu in view of Sokol 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 Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Mercurio (3,457,917) and Collazo (2021/0170132) with respect to claim 1 and Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Collazo (2021/0170132) with respect to claim 12.
Conclusion
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
