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 4/21/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 12 and 17 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“air treatment components…” in claims 1, 12 and 21 (corresponding structure is a fan [0087] and filter [0095]).
“a filtration component…” in claims 1 and 13 (corresponding structure is a filter [0095]).
“a fan component…” in claims 1 and 13 (corresponding structure is a fan [0087]).
“a power component…” in claims 1 and 12 (corresponding structure is battery [0083]).
“a locking member…” in claims 4 and 14 (corresponding structure is at least a locking lip [0079]).
“a germicidal irradiation component…” in claims 5 and 12 (corresponding structure is a light source [0111]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2011/0126828) in view of Sokol et al. (2020/0139165).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1-4 Wu discloses an air purification apparatus for nasal application comprising (structure in fig. 3): a housing (11 and top portion that 15 fits into) to substantially enclose an interior space (Fig. 2); air treatment components (2 and 3) located within the interior space to at least partially purify air [0020] comprising: a filtration component 21 to remove impurities from the air [0020], and a fan component 3 to actively pass the air through the filtration component [0020]; a power component (172, 13, 131) located substantially within the interior space to provide electrical power to the air treatment components [0020]; and a nose plug component 152 operatively attached to the housing to be removably inserted into a nostril such to form an at least partial seal with a nasal cavity [0020], wherein the nose plug component comprises a nose plug aperture (aperture that extends through 152 [0020]) that extends substantially from a nose plug base end (end of 152 closest to housing) through the nose plug component to a nose plug nostril end (end of 152 furthest from housing), wherein the housing, the air treatment components, the power component, and the nose plug component comprise a single integrated unit insertable into a nostril such to form an at least partial seal with a nasal cavity (all components form a single integrated unit, as seen in fig. 3, since they are all connected to one another, and a portion of the unit is inserted into the nostril), but is silent regarding that the nose plug aperture comprises mesh. However, in fig. 7A Sokol teaches a nose plug aperture that comprises mesh [0131][0133]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s nose plug aperture with the addition of a mesh, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of providing further filtration to the user ([0133] Sokol).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wu discloses that the power component further comprises: a battery (172 Wu) to reversibly store the electrical power; power delivery electronics to transmit the electrical power from the battery to the air treatment components (electronics must be provided to extend from the batteries 172 to 2 and 3 [0020] Wu); and battery charging electronics (13 Wu) 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 components as the electrical power ([0020] the power from 13 is stored in batteries 172 for use by 2 and 3 Wu).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Wu discloses that the housing comprises: a top housing portion (top portion that 15 fits into, fig. 1 Wu), a bottom housing portion (11 Wu) removably attached (with enough force 11 is removable from the top portion, especially as they are fit together separately in fig. 1, Wu) to the top housing portion, and housing inlets (14 Wu) located on the bottom housing portion to permit the air to flow into the interior space ([0020] Wu); wherein the fan component (3 Wu) receives the air from the housing inlets and passes it through the filtration component (Fig. 2 [0020] Wu); and wherein the air that is passed through the filtration component is moved to the nasal cavity through the nose plug component ([0020] Fig. 1-4 Wu).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wu discloses that the air treatment components further comprise: a germicidal irradiation component (ultraviolet lamp [0020] Wu) to emit ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation that at least partially sterilizes pathogens from the air prior to entry into the nasal cavity (uv lamps are able to at least partially sterilize pathogens [0020] Wu).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Wu discloses that the filtration component comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter ([0020] Wu).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wu discloses that the filtration component comprises activated carbon ([0020] Wu).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Wu is silent regarding a monitoring component comprising a sensor to detect a condition of the air included by an environmental space adjacent to the sensor; and wherein the condition is reportable via a communicably connected display device. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a monitoring component 114 comprising a sensor to detect a condition of the air included by an environmental space adjacent to the sensor [0083][0124]; and wherein the condition is reportable via a communicably connected display device [0083][0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s apparatus with the addition of a monitoring component, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Regarding claim 12, in fig. 1-4 Wu discloses an air purification apparatus for nasal application comprising (structure in fig. 3): a housing (11 and top portion that 15 fits into) to substantially enclose an interior space (Fig. 2); a nose plug component 152 operatively attached to the housing to be removably inserted into a nostril such to form an at least partial seal with a nasal cavity [0020], wherein the nose plug component comprises a nose plug aperture (aperture that extends through 152 [0020]) that extends substantially from a nose plug base end (end of 152 closest to housing) through the nose plug component to a nose plug nostril end (end of 152 furthest from housing), air treatment components (2 and 3) located within the interior space to at least partially purify air [0020] comprising: a germicidal irradiation component (ultraviolet lamp [0020]) to emit ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation that at least partially sterilizes pathogens from the air prior to entry into the nasal cavity (uv lamps are able to at least partially sterilize pathogens [0020]), and a power component (172, 13, 131) located substantially within the interior space to provide electrical power to the air treatment components [0020], wherein the housing, the nose plug component, the air treatment components, the power component comprise a single integrated unit insertable into a nostril such to form an at least partial seal with a nasal cavity (all components form a single integrated unit, as seen in fig. 3, since they are all connected to one another, and a portion of the unit is inserted into the nostril), but is silent regarding that the nose plug aperture comprises mesh. However, in fig. 7A Sokol teaches a nose plug aperture that comprises mesh [0131][0133]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s nose plug aperture with the addition of a mesh, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of providing further filtration to the user ([0133] Sokol).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wu discloses that the air treatment components further comprise: a filtration component (21 Wu) to remove impurities from the air ([0020] Wu), and a fan component (3 Wu) to actively pass the air through the filtration component ([0020] Wu).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Wu discloses that the power component further comprises: a battery (172 Wu) to reversibly store the electrical power; power delivery electronics to transmit the electrical power from the battery to the air treatment components (electronics must be provided to extend from the batteries 172 to 2 and 3 [0020] Wu); and battery charging electronics (13 Wu) 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 components as the electrical power ([0020] the power from 13 is stored in batteries 172 for use by 2 and 3, Wu).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Wu discloses that the filtration component comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter ([0020] Wu) and a carbon ([0020] Wu).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wu is silent regarding a monitoring component comprising a sensor to detect a condition of the air included by an environmental space adjacent to the housing; and wherein the condition is reportable via a communicably connected display device. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a monitoring component 114 comprising a sensor to detect a condition of the air included by an environmental space adjacent (near to) to the housing [0083][0124]; and wherein the condition is reportable via a communicably connected display device [0083][0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s apparatus with the addition of a monitoring component, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Clover (“How to Change an AirTag’s Battery” April 20, 2021).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wu is silent regarding that the housing further comprises: a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion operatively attached to the top housing portion, a locking interface bottom portion operatively attached to the bottom housing portion, a locking member provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member; wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip; and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip. However, in fig. 1-3 Clover teaches a housing (top and bottom housing portions of the AirTag) that comprises: a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion (portion of cover that contacts AirTag) operatively attached to the top housing portion (cover of AirTag), a locking interface bottom portion (portion of AirTag that contacts the cover) operatively attached to the bottom housing portion (AirTag), a locking member (three tabs on the cover) provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip (structure that forms slots of AirTag) of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap (slot of AirTag) provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member (the three tabs align with the slots upon rotation); wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip (by clockwise rotation); and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip (by counterclockwise rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s connection between the top and bottom housing portions with a locking interface, as taught by Clover, for the purpose of the replacement of parts as needed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Wu is silent regarding that the air treatment components further comprise: an aroma component comprising an aroma reservoir to reversibly hold an aromatic material having an aroma; and wherein the aroma is at least partially transferred from the aromatic material into the air. However, Tran teaches an aroma component comprising an aroma reservoir (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]) to reversibly hold an aromatic material [0040] having an aroma; and wherein the aroma is at least partially transferred from the aromatic material into the air [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s air treatment components with the addition of an aroma reservoir, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Wu 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 Wu’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 Wu 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Clover (“How to Change an AirTag’s Battery” April 20, 2021).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wu discloses a top housing portion (top portion that 15 fits into, fig. 1), a bottom housing portion 11 removably attached (with enough force 11 is removable from the top portion, especially as they are fit together separately in fig. 1) to the top housing portion, and housing inlets 14 located on the bottom housing portion to permit the air to flow into the interior space [0020]; but is silent regarding that the housing further comprises: a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion operatively attached to the top housing portion, a locking interface bottom portion operatively attached to the bottom housing portion, a locking member provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member; wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip; and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip. However, in fig. 1-3 Clover teaches a housing (top and bottom housing portions of the AirTag) that comprises: a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion (portion of cover that contacts AirTag) operatively attached to the top housing portion (cover of AirTag), a locking interface bottom portion (portion of AirTag that contacts the cover) operatively attached to the bottom housing portion (AirTag), a locking member (three tabs on the cover) provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip (structure that forms slots of AirTag) of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap (slot of AirTag) provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member (the three tabs align with the slots upon rotation); wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip (by clockwise rotation); and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip (by counterclockwise rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s connection between the top and bottom housing portions with a locking interface, as taught by Clover, for the purpose of the replacement of parts as needed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Wu is silent regarding that the air treatment components further comprise: an aroma component comprising: an aroma reservoir to reversibly hold an aromatic material having an aroma that is at least partially diffused into the air. However, Tran teaches an aroma reservoir (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]) to reversibly hold an aromatic material [0040] having an aroma that is at least partially diffused into the air [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Wu’s air treatment components with the addition of an aroma reservoir, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sokol, applied to claim 12 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Wu 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 Wu’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 19, the modified Wu 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).
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 case, 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 6 is aligned with copending claim 6.
Claim 7 is aligned with copending claim 7.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,293 in view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828), as applied to claim 1 above. The modified copending claim 1 discloses all of the limitations of instant claim 1 except a filtration component comprises activated carbon. However, Wu teaches the filtration component comprises activated carbon [0020]. 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 copending claim 1 with the addition of activated carbon [0020], as taught by Wu, for the purpose of providing purified air to the nose of the user. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9 is aligned with copending claim 10.
Claim 10 is aligned with copending claim 10.
Claim 11 is aligned with copending claim 11.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 17/994,293. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 12 describes a case. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 is aligned with copending claim 13.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 17/994,293 in view of Clover (“How to Change an AirTag’s Battery” April 20, 2021), as applied to claim 12 above. Copending claim 14 discloses all of the limitations of instant claim 14 except a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion operatively attached to the top housing portion, a locking interface bottom portion operatively attached to the bottom housing portion, a locking member provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member; wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip; and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip. However, in fig. 1-3 Clover teaches a housing (top and bottom housing portions of the AirTag) that comprises: a locking interface comprising: a locking interface top portion (portion of cover that contacts AirTag) operatively attached to the top housing portion (cover of AirTag), a locking interface bottom portion (portion of AirTag that contacts the cover) operatively attached to the bottom housing portion (AirTag), a locking member (three tabs on the cover) provided by the locking interface top portion to receive at least part of a locking lip (structure that forms slots of AirTag) of the locking interface bottom portion, and a locking gap (slot of AirTag) provided by the locking interface bottom portion having sufficient width to receive the locking member (the three tabs align with the slots upon rotation); wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in a locked position by rotating the locking member passed through the locking gap in a first locking direction to receive the locking lip (by clockwise rotation); and wherein the locking interface is reversibly configured in an unlocked position by rotating the locking member in a second locking direction to release the locking lip (by counterclockwise rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify copending claim 14’s connection between the top and bottom housing portions with a locking interface, as taught by Clover, for the purpose of the replacement of parts as needed.
Claim 15 is aligned with copending claim 15.
Claim 16 is aligned with copending claim 16.
Claim 17 is aligned with copending claim 17.
Claim 18 is aligned with copending claim 18.
Claim 19 is aligned with copending claim 18.
Claim 20 is aligned with copending claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 3-4 that Wu is designed to be carried on a user’s shoulder or worn on the belt, not to be inserted in a user’s nostrils, and that Wu does not teach applicant’s nose plug aperture.
Examiner disagrees since Wu teaches that nose plug component 152 is inserted into the user’s nostril [0020] and that Wu also teaches a nose plug aperture (aperture that extends through 152 [0020]).
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
Prosecution Insights