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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference character “122” is not found in the specification (Fig 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms “WiFi”, “Bluetooth”, “Zigbee” (paragraph 00115), “Visual Basic”, “Java”, “Python”, “Perl”, “JavaScript”, and “ActionScript” (paragraph 00129), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. Each term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 29, 33, and 71 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the device” should be changed to –the respirator device—for consistency (Claim 3, Line 3).
The phrase “saw-tooth like” should be changed to –saw-tooth—to make it clear that the feature has saw-tooth shapes (Claim 29, Line 3).
The phrase “particulate filtering” should be changed to—particulate—since filtering is already mentioned later in the claim as part of the list (Claim 33, Line 4).
The phrase “particulate filtering” should be changed to—particulate—since filtering is already mentioned later in the claim as part of the list (Claim 71, Line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
The locking element of Claim 45. The corresponding structure is the locking ring 114 shown in Fig 4.
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 § 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 35 and 72 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 35 states “more than one type of filter media component” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how many filter media components are involved and how many filter components are encapsulated in the device at the same time. It appears the applicant was trying to say the filter media component is interchangeable with multiple filter types. However, the claim limitation creates confusion regarding the number of filter media components involved since it only indicates that multiple types can be encapsulated. Is the filter media component containing multiple types of filter capabilities or there are multiple filter media components each containing one type of filter capability? Additionally, are there multiple types of filter media components being encapsulated at the same time or is there only one filter media component that is interchangeable with other types of filter media components? Therefore, the number of filter media components involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as at least one filter media component is involved and that the filter media component is interchangeable with filter media components of different types. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 72 (Line 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-18, 20-23, 26-30, 33, 35, 45-46, and 69-72 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 discusses a modular reuseable respirator device comprising: a filter grill configured to couple to a filter adapter, the two cooperating to house a filter media component between the two; and a filter retention mechanism including an interlocking bayonet-type ratcheting ramp configured to provide a sealing pressure around the filter media component.
Claim 45 discusses a device similar to Claim 1.
Claim 69 discusses a device similar to Claims 1 and 45.
Claims 2-12, 14-18, 20-23, 26-30, 33, 35, 46, and 70-72 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 1, 45, and 69.
Baker discusses a bayonet connector for a filter cartridge. Regarding Claims 1, 45, and 69, there is nothing in Baker that discusses a filter retention mechanism or any kind of reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to directly replace the filter within the filter cartridges. Baker does mention that the lugs 130,132 and/or ribs 136,138 can have an inclined surface and/or detent (Baker: paragraph 0033) but the purpose is drastically different from the purpose of the claimed invention and is solely to allow correct alignment of the filter cartridge. The instant invention discusses an interlocking bayonet-type ratcheting ramp specifically for retaining a filter between two filter components. The components are depicted as 142 and 144 in Fig 4 of the instant invention. The purpose of the components is to allow for the use of filters of various thickness and composition (Specification: paragraph 0054). Baker has no reason to modify the filter cartridge to have a removable filter. Additionally, Baker has no reason to modify a bayonet connection to have the ratcheting ramps involved in the claim. Other prior art do have removable filter covers or grilles to allow for removal of the filter, but the connecting mechanism for these covers or grilles are simple and do not take into account of filters of varying thicknesses. There is no motivation or reason to add ratchet ramps to existing threads or bayonet connections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US 6497756 B1 is a respirator cartridge that has pawl/ratchet interaction (Figs 6-7) to allow for easier viewing of end of service life indicator.
EP-3643363-A1 discusses the use of ratchet gears and pawl teeth to limit rotation of an adaptor for engagement of a respirator cartridge.
English Machine Translation of CN-1901974-A provided by PE2E discusses a respirator that has a bayonet connection that prevents accidental removal.
English Machine Translation of CN-101052441-A provided by PE2E discusses a respirator with threads that prevent an over-rotation of the cartridge.
English Machine Translation of KR-101301444-B1 provided by PE2E discusses a canister fixing unit that prevents the canister from being separated through the use of teeth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights