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 11/26/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, and 6-20 have been amended, claim 5 has been canceled, and new claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6-21 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.
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 supply unit” in claims 1, 16 and 19 (corresponding structure is a battery-powered air blower, fitted with an internal filter, see page 20, lines 36-37).
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 Objections
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “of respirator” in the last line, suggested to be changed to --of the respirator-- for grammatical reasons.
Claim 11 recites “toward from” suggested to be changed to --from-- for proper phrasing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 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 16 recites “a location a location with the face covering” suggested to be changed to --a location within the face covering-- for clarity.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson (WO 2016/196462) in view of Cartwright et al. (2021/0195980) and Her-Mou (5,533,500).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 2 Martinson discloses a respirator comprising: a headgear comprising a cradle 228 for interfacing with a user's head, and a face covering 219 from within which a user may breathe during use; a tube (160 see fig. 1) to receive air from an air supply unit (170 see fig. 1); and an interface component (151, fig. 3A) to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the face covering [0025], wherein the interface component supports the face covering (Fig. 2) and comprises an overhead branch (structure in fig. 3A), the overhead branch having a narrowing portion (191 narrows towards 192, see fig. 1B), but is silent regarding that the interface component comprises a forehead branch. However, in fig. 1 and 3 Cartwright teaches an interface component (104 and 24) comprises a forehead branch (lowest part of 104 closest to the user’s face in use, as well as frame 22 including halo 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinson’s interface component and with the addition of a forehead branch, as taught by Cartwright, for the purpose of providing further support to the face covering. The modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises an air conduit through which air received from the tube flows toward the forehead branch ([0025] Martinson), the narrowing portion having an internal cross-sectional area that narrows along a direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson), but is silent regarding that one or more bleed holes are provided in the narrowing portion, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering. However, in fig. 3A Her-Mou teaches one or more bleed holes 222 are provided throughout an air passage along a user’s head, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering (see fig. 3A). 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 Martinson’s forehead branch, including the narrowing portion, with blood holes, as taught by Her-Mou, for the purpose of providing further filtered air to the user.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Martinson discloses that the narrowing portion has a length (192, fig. 1B Martinson), the narrowing portion transitioning along the length so as to narrow in a first direction (from right to left in fig. 1B, Martinson), and widen in a second direction (from left to right in fig. 1B, Martinson), so as to achieve the internal cross-sectional area that narrows along the direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B, Martinson).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises an external cross-section that has a horizontal width and a vertical height (Fig. 1B, Martinson), the horizontal width being greater than the vertical height (Fig. 1B, Martinson), so as to reduce overhead clearance of respirator (Fig. 1B, Martinson).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises a divergent portion (distal end of 153 that diverges in a width direction, Martinson) to feed air to the forehead branch (fig. 1 Cartwright), the divergent portion located between the narrowing portion and the forehead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson, Fig. 1 Cartwright), and divergent in a width (Fig. 3A Martinson) or horizontal direction and non-divergent in a height (the distal end of 153 has a height that remains the same, Fig. 1B Martinson) or vertical direction.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Martinson discloses that the forehead branch comprises an elongated vent (106, Fig. 6 Cartwright) arranged to receive at an input of the elongated vent air flow from the divergent portion of the overhead branch (Fig. 1 Cartwright, Fig. 1B Martinson), and provide at an output of the elongated vent a curtain of air (Fig. 1 Cartwright, Fig. 1B Martinson).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch includes a downward facing vertical portion (where 150 is pointing in fig. 1B, Martinson) through which the air conduit continues, thereby allowing the tube to be vertically oriented when coupled to the downward facing vertical portion (Fig. 2, Martinson).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Martinson discloses the air supply unit (170 see fig. 1 Martinson); and that a vibration decoupler (152, allows for decoupling of the interface component from the tube, such that vibrating will be stopped, Martinson), provided between the air supply unit and the interface component (Fig. 1B, Martinson).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright and Her-Mou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker (2010/0108067).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Martinson does not explicitly recite that the interface component is releasably mounted to one, two or three of: the cradle; the tube; and the face covering. However, Walker teaches an interface component 20 that is releasably mounted to a cradle 14 [0053]. 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 Martinson’s interface component and cradle with a releasable connection, as taught by Walker, for the purpose of cleaning and replacement of parts as needed.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Martinson is silent regarding that the cradle comprises an adjuster. However, Cartwright teaches an adjuster 32. 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 Martinson’s cradle with the addition of an adjuster, as taught by Cartwright, for the purpose of adjusting the cradle to the size of the user’s head ([0042] Cartwright). The modified Martinson is silent regarding a cradle-engaging fastening of the interface component to mount the interface component to the cradle. However, in fig. 1 Walker teaches a cradle-engaging fastening 24 of the interface component to mount the interface component to the cradle [0053]. 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 Martinson’s cradle and interface component with a cradle-engaging fasting, as taught by Walker, for the purpose of retaining the interface component in the right position with respect to the cradle. The modified Martinson discloses that the adjuster cooperates with the cradle-engaging fastening of the interface (the adjuster 32, as taught by Cartwright, is attached to the cradle and therefore cooperates with the cradle-engaging fastening of the interface).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright, Her-Mou and Walker as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (2009/0055987).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Martinson discloses that the cradle-engaging fastening connects between the adjuster of the cradle and the interface component (24 as taught by Walker is between the adjuster 32 taught by Cartwright and the interface component 151 of Martinson), but is silent regarding that the cradle-engaging fastening comprises a bracket. However, in fig. 6 Becket teaches a fastening that comprises a bracket 52 between a cradle 56 and an interface component 16. 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 Martinson’s cradle-engaging fastening with a bracket, as taught by Becker, for the purpose of providing an alternate cradle-engaging fastening having the predictable results of attaching the cradle and interface component together.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright, Her-Mou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leger (10,603,526).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Martinson discloses that the forehead branch comprises an outwardly-projecting brim (24 Cartwright), but is silent regarding face covering fastenings extending from the brim. However, Leger teaches a forehead portion 18 that with face covering fastenings 38 extending therefrom that engage with hood 32. 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 Martinson’s forehead branch with the addition of face covering fasteners, as taught by Leger, for the purpose of providing an alternate coupling having the predictable results of coupling the face covering with the forehead branch.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright and Her-Mou, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rose et al. (2019/0160249).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Martinson is silent regarding that the elongated vent is generally divergent from the input of the elongated vent to the output of the elongated vent. However, in fig. 3B Rose teaches vent outlets 17 with beveled edges 24, the bevel providing a divergence from the input of the elongated vent to the output of the elongated vent (Fig. 3B). 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 Martinson’s vent with the addition of a beveled edge, as taught by Rose, for the purpose of reducing noise ([0129] Rose).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Martinson is silent regarding that the elongated vent is configured with a bevelled edge, the bevelled edge providing a local divergence toward the output of the elongated vent. However, in fig. 3B Rose teaches vent outlets 17 with beveled edges 24, the beveled edges providing a local divergence toward the output of the vents (Fig. 3B). 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 Martinson’s vent with the addition of a beveled edge, as taught by Rose, for the purpose of reducing noise ([0129] Rose).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright and Her-Mou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (2007/0125237).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Martinson is silent regarding that the one or more bleed holes are angled, such that airflow through the one or more bleed holes is at an acute angle to the direction along which the internal cross-sectional area of the narrowing portion narrows. However, in fig. 3 and 7 Park teaches one or more bleed holes 121 are angled [0043]. 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 Martinson’s one or more bleed holes with acute angled bleed holes, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing alternately shaped bleed holes having the predictable results of providing filtered air to the user. The modified Martinson discloses that airflow through the one or more bleed holes is at an acute angle to the direction along which the internal cross-sectional area of the narrowing portion narrows ([0043] Park).
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson (WO 2016/196462) in view of Cartwright et al. (2021/0195980), Her-Mou (5,533,500) and Park (2007/0125237).
Regarding claim 16, in fig. 2 Martinson discloses a respirator comprising: a headgear comprising a cradle 228 for interfacing with a user's head, and a face covering 219 from within which a user may breathe during use; a tube (160 see fig. 1) to receive air from an air supply unit; and an interface component (151, fig. 3A) to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the face covering [0025], wherein the interface component 151 comprises an overhead branch (structure in fig. 3A), the overhead branch having a narrowing portion (191 narrows towards 192, see fig. 1B), but is silent regarding that the interface component comprises a forehead branch. However, in fig. 1 and 3 Cartwright teaches an interface component (104 and 24) comprises a forehead branch (lowest part of 104 closest to the user’s face in use, as well as frame 22 including halo 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinson’s interface component and with the addition of a forehead branch, as taught by Cartwright, for the purpose of providing further support to the face covering. The modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises an air conduit through which air received from the tube flows toward the forehead branch ([0025] Martinson), the narrowing portion having an internal cross-sectional area that narrows along a direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson), but is silent regarding that one or more bleed holes are provided in the narrowing portion, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering. However, in fig. 3A Her-Mou teaches one or more bleed holes 222 are provided throughout an air passage along a user’s head, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering (see fig. 3A). 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 Martinson’s forehead branch, including the narrowing portion, with blood holes, as taught by Her-Mou, for the purpose of providing further filtered air to the user. The modified Martinson is silent regarding that the one or more bleed holes are angled, such that airflow through the one or more bleed holes is at an acute angle to the direction along which the internal cross-sectional area of the narrowing portion narrows. However, in fig. 3 and 7 Park teaches one or more bleed holes 121 are angled [0043]. 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 Martinson’s one or more bleed holes with acute angled bleed holes, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing alternately shaped bleed holes having the predictable results of providing filtered air to the user. The modified Martinson discloses that airflow through the one or more bleed holes is at an acute angle to the direction along which the internal cross-sectional area of the narrowing portion narrows ([0043] Park). The modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises a divergent portion (portion of 153 that diverges to the distal end portion of 153, Martinson) to feed air to the forehead branch, to provide a curtain of air within the face covering (Fig. 1B, Martinson), and the overhead branch comprises a divergent portion (distal end of 153 that diverges in a width direction, Martinson) to feed air to the forehead branch (fig. 1 Cartwright), the divergent portion located between the narrowing portion and the forehead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson, Fig. 1 Cartwright), and divergent in a width (Fig. 3A Martinson) or horizontal direction and non-divergent in a height (the distal end of 153 has a height that remains the same, Fig. 1B Martinson) or vertical direction.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Martinson discloses that the narrowing portion of the overhead branch has a length (Fig. 1B Martinson), the narrowing portion transitioning along the length so as to narrow in a first direction (from right to left in fig. 1B, Martinson), and widen in a second direction (from left to right in fig. 1B, Martinson), so as to achieve the internal cross-sectional area that narrows along the direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson).
Regarding claim 19, in fig. 2 Martinson discloses respirator comprising: an air supply unit (170 see fig. 1) arranged to deliver air at its output (output of 170 that connected with 160, see fig. 1); headgear comprising a cradle 228 configured to interface with a user's head (Fig. 2), and a face covering 219; a tube (160. See fig. 1A) to receive air from the air supply unit (Fig. 1A); and an interface component 151 to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the face covering (see fig. 2), wherein the interface component supports the face covering (Fig. 2) and comprises an overhead branch (structure in fig. 3A), the overhead branch having a narrowing portion (191 narrows towards 192, see fig. 1B), the narrowing portion has a length (Fig. 1B), the narrowing portion transitioning along the length so as to narrow in a first direction(from right to left in fig. 1B, Martinson), and widen in a second direction (from left to right in fig. 1B, Martinson), so as to achieve the internal cross-sectional area that narrows along the direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson), but is silent regarding that the interface component comprises a forehead branch. However, in fig. 1 and 3 Cartwright teaches an interface component (104 and 24) comprises a forehead branch (lowest part of 104 closest to the user’s face in use, as well as frame 22 including halo 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinson’s interface component and with the addition of a forehead branch, as taught by Cartwright, for the purpose of providing further support to the face covering. The modified Martinson discloses that the overhead branch comprises an air conduit through which air received from the tube flows toward the forehead branch ([0025] Martinson), the narrowing portion having an internal cross-sectional area that narrows along a direction in which the received air flows toward the overhead branch (Fig. 1B Martinson), but is silent regarding that one or more bleed holes are provided in the narrowing portion, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering. However, in fig. 3A Her-Mou teaches one or more bleed holes 222 are provided throughout an air passage along a user’s head, and wherein the one or more bleed holes open toward a location within the face covering (see fig. 3A). 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 Martinson’s forehead branch, including the narrowing portion, with blood holes, as taught by Her-Mou, for the purpose of providing further filtered air to the user. The modified Martinson is silent regarding that the one or more bleed holes are angled, such that airflow through the one or more bleed holes is at an acute angle to the direction along which the internal cross-sectional area of the narrowing portion narrows. However, in fig. 3 and 7 Park teaches one or more bleed holes 121 are angled [0043]. 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 Martinson’s one or more bleed holes with acute angled bleed holes, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing alternately shaped bleed holes having the predictable results of providing filtered air to the user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright, Her-Mou and Park, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rose et al. (2019/0160249).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Martinson discloses that the forehead branch comprises a vent (opening or openings to 153), but is silent regarding that the vent has a bevelled edge [0201], the beveled edge providing a local divergence toward an open end of the vent. However, in fig. 3B Rose teaches vent outlets 17 with beveled edges 24, the beveled edge providing a local divergence toward an open end of the vent (Fig. 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinson’s vent with the addition of a beveled edge, as taught by Rose, for the purpose of reducing noise ([0129] Rose). The modified Martinson discloses that the acute angle is in the range for 30 to 45 degrees, but does not recite a range of 50 to 70 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the acute angle with an acute angle of 50 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it appears that an angle of 50 degrees would perform equally as well at providing filtered air to the user. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright, Her-Mou and Park, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Johnston (6,012,175).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Martinson is silent regarding a vibration decoupler including a tube of non self-supporting material, provided between the tube and the interface component, thereby decoupling the interface component from vibrations passing along the tube. However, in fig. 2 Johnston teaches a vibration decoupler 20 including a tube of non self-supporting material (Col. 1, ll. 55-60, Col. 4, ll. 19-25), provided between a tube (“air line” Col. 4, ll. 63-65) and an interface component (structure within hood), thereby decoupling the interface component from vibrations passing along the tube (20, including 32, 34, dampen or decouple sound vibration, see col. 3, ll. 63- col 4, ll. 25). 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 Martinson’s tube and interface component with the addition of a vibration decoupler, as taught by Johnston, for the purpose of providing vibration and sound damping.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson, Cartwright and Her-Mou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnston (6,012,175).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Martinson is silent regarding a vibration decoupler including a tube of non self-supporting material, provided between the tube and the interface component, thereby decoupling the interface component from vibrations passing along the tube. However, in fig. 2 Johnston teaches a vibration decoupler 20 including a tube of non self-supporting material (Col. 1, ll. 55-60, Col. 4, ll. 19-25), provided between a tube (“air line” Col. 4, ll. 63-65) and an interface component (structure within hood), thereby decoupling the interface component from vibrations passing along the tube (20, including 32, 34, dampen or decouple sound vibration, see col. 3, ll. 63- col 4, ll. 25). 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 Martinson’s tube and interface component with the addition of a vibration decoupler, as taught by Johnston, for the purpose of providing vibration and sound damping.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/006,266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims do not include at least the bleed holes are angled of claim 6 of ‘266.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 112f interpretation. On page 9, applicant argues that “air supply unit” has been amended in order to not be interpreted under 112f. Examiner disagrees that the wording of “air supply unit” should not be interpreted under 112f since “unit” is the generic place holder and “air supply” is the recited function of supplying air.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 11/26/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 16 and 19 under Martinson (WO 2016/196462) 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 Martinson (WO 2016/196462) in view of Cartwright et al. (2021/0195980) and Her-Mou (5,533,500) with respect to claim 1, and Martinson (WO 2016/196462) in view of Cartwright et al. (2021/0195980), Her-Mou (5,533,500) and Park (2007/0125237) with respect to claims 16 and 19.
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