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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2023, 09/17/2023, 09/23/2023, and 01/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 7 and 8 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 7 is rendered indefinite as the claim does not define the location of “the flexible region” in terms of whether it is referring to the flexible region of the headband, or the air delivery mask. It is being interpreted as referring to the flexible region of the air delivery mask.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite as the claim does not define the location of “the flexible region” in terms of whether it is referring to the flexible region of the headband, or the air delivery mask. It is being interpreted as referring to the flexible region of the air delivery mask.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. CN 103961822A, in view of Cranfield et al. 2019/0320255
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches a wearable air purification system (Abstract) comprising: a wearable support configured to be supported on a head region of a user (Figure 1, head 1) and having a first end connected to an earpiece and a second end connected to a second earpiece (Figure 2 depicts head 1 connected to ear 11); an air delivery mask in the form of an elongated bar (Flow passage 3) that includes first and second ends connected to the wearable support (Figure 1) and which is shaped to bound an air delivery region and to deliver a flow of air to the air delivery region (0057 states “the middle flow passage 3, located in the nostril of the user position is provided with an air outlet 7”); wherein the wearable support and the air delivery mask each includes a respective flexible region which allows both the wearable support and the air delivery mask to fold into a compact configuration (Figures 3 and 6 depict the ability of both head 1 and flow passage 3 to flex and fold into a compact configuration).
Xiao fails to teach the earpieces as being both a first audio earpiece and a second audio earpiece. Cranfield discloses an analogous collapsing headphone device that does teach the earpieces as being both a first audio earpiece and a second audio earpiece (Figure 3 depicts wherein “Each earcup assembly 308, 310 contains earcups 302, 304 speakers 312”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ears of Xiao with the teachings of Cranfield and include the earpieces as being both a first audio earpiece and a second audio earpiece as this provides the device of Xiao the ability to provide portable audio (0003) allowing the user to not have to use an alternate audio device while using the purifying mask.
Regarding claim 2, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the first and second ends of the wearable support are connected to the first and second audio earpieces by respective movable couplings (Figure 4 of Cranfield depicts the wearable support connected to the ear pieces by way of a pivot assembly 334 and 336). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Xiao with the teachings of Cranfield and include movable couplings as it would allow for efficient storage and carrying of the device (0003).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible region of the wearable support is defined approximately at the middle of the length of the wearable support. Cranfield does teach wherein the flexible region of the wearable support is defined approximately at the middle of the length of the wearable support (Figures 9c and 9d of Cranfield depict the wearable support being flexible and allowing for a collapsing of the headset). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Xiao with the teachings of Cranfield and include a flexible region as it would allow for efficient storage and carrying of the device (0003).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the flexible region of the wearable support is located towards one of end of the headband (Figure 4 of Cranfield depicts the wearable support connected to the ear pieces by way of a pivot assembly 334 and 336, this region is located towards an end of the headband.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the flexible region of the wearable support is a living hinge (the wearable support does include a flexible region that has a living hinge as stated in 0064 “included internally within the subassembly on the upper part is a living hinge or spring loaded detent that corresponds to a track or rack of softened clip like features and allows the arms to adjust incrementally against each other.”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xiao fails to explicitly teach the system of Claim 5, wherein the living hinge is of the same material as the adjacent portions of the wearable support. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the living hinge is of the same material as the adjacent portions of the wearable support since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would allow for a uniform flexibility between the hinge and the adjacent portions.
Regarding claim 8, Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the flexible region defines an air channel. Since the adjustment of the flow passage as shown in figure 3 comprises the use of a scale to adjust the size in the front rear direction, the entirety of the flexible region is defined as the entirety of flow passage 3. Flow passage 3 does define an air channel as 0057 states “the middle flow passage 3, located in the nostril of the user position is provided with an air outlet 7”.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the air delivery mask is connected to the wearable support via the first and second audio earpieces (The modification of Xiao in view of Cranfield is the inclusion of audio into ear 11 of Xiao. Figure 2 of Xiao depicts flow passage 3 connected to ear 11, with the flow passage being connected to head 1 by way of ears 4).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 9, wherein the first end of the wearable support is connected to the first audio earpiece and the second end of the wearable support is connected to the second audio earpiece (Figure 2 depicts head 1 connected to both ears 11 on the left and right side, these ears have been modified with Cranfield to include audio).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 10, where each end of the air delivery mask is coupled to the respective audio earpiece by a movable coupling (Figure 2 depicts a movable coupling in scale 16 that does connect the ends of flow passage 3 to ears 11. These ears have been modified by Cranfield to include audio.).
Regarding claim 12, Xiao teaches the system of Claim 11, wherein at least of the respective movable couplings define at least one respective air channel (Figure 3 depicts a flow passage in 301 and 302 leading to air outlet 7 within the flow passage 3).
Regarding claim 14, Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is located towards at least one of its respective ends (the flexible region of scale 16 which allows for movement in a front-rear direction is located at one end of air delivery support 3, as depicted in figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask extends across greater than 30% of its length. Since the flexible region of the air delivery mask is the entirety of flow passage 3 based on flexibility in the front-rear direction, the flexible region does extend across greater than 30% of the length of flow passage 3.
Claims 7, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Xiao in view of Hine et al. 2009/0217926
Regarding claim 7, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible region is a rotating hinge. Hine teaches an analogous respirator with a connection to the head of a user (figure 6) and the ability to deliver air (air guide 2), that does teach wherein the flexible region is a rotating hinge (Figures 4 and 5, living hinges 45 depict a flexible region as the air delivery mask collapses). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Xiao with the teachings of Hine and include wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is a rotating hinge as this allows for easier storage (0008).
Regarding claim 13, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is defined approximately in the middle of the air delivery mask between the ends thereof. Hine does teach wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is defined approximately in the middle of the air delivery mask between the ends thereof (Figures 4 and 5, living hinges 45 depicts a flexible region in the middle of the apparatus as the air delivery mask 2 collapses). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and include wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is defined approximately in the middle of the air delivery mask between the ends thereof as this allows for easier storage (0008).
Regarding claim 16, modified Xiao teaches the system of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is a living hinge. Hine does teach wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is a living hinge (Figures 4 and 5, living hinges 45 depicts a flexible region in the middle of the apparatus as the air delivery mask 2 collapses). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and include wherein the flexible region of the air delivery mask is a living hinge as this allows for easier storage (0008).
Regarding claim 17, modified Xiao in view of Hine teaches the system of Claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the living hinge of the air delivery mask is formed of the same material as adjacent portions of the air delivery mask. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the living hinge of the air delivery mask is formed of the same material as adjacent portions of the air delivery mask since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would allow for a uniform flexibility between the hinge and the adjacent portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. 2011/0268290 depicts an analogous headset with air delivery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785