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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(f) interpretation previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/08/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment changing “dispersing element container” to “dispersing container” has rendered the previous 112(f) interpretation moot. The interpretation has been withdrawn and “dispersing container” is now interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The argument that Adams’s fig. 26E does not clearly show that the inner frame would be positioned in the center wall aperture is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art can readily understand that the figure is an exploded figure showing the assembly steps of the inner frame (identified in Adams [0307]), as well as the description presented in Adams [0307]. Since the embodiment of fig. 26E is still intended to fit into the mask as shown in fig. 26A, it is reasonable to understand that the components forming the described inner frame would fit into the center aperture based on their position in the exploded diagram and the description provided in Adams. See MPEP 2125, “drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
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.
Claim limitations in this application use the nonce term “element” in the claims, but are not being interpreted under 112(f) because they have sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“Center wall element” of claims 1 and 17
“Periphery wall element” of claims 1 and 17
“Cover element” of claims 1 and 17
“Tube element” of claims 1 and 17
“Filter media element” of claim 2
“Seal film element” of claim 9
“Release film element” of claim 10
“Near field communication element” of claim 15
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation “the cover body” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim should be amended to recite “wherein the tube body and a cover body of the cover element are received within the center wall element.”
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Adams (US 2022/0054867 A1), hereafter Adams in view of Davis (US 4753389 A), hereafter Davis.
Regarding Claim 1, Adams discloses a filtration component (fig. 26A, filter cartridges 2630A, 2640A [0307]) for a respiratory protective device (fig. 26A, face covering 2600A [0307]), the filtration component comprising: a filter body (fig. 26E, see annotated fig. and [0307]) comprising a center wall element (annotated fig. 27E [0307] lines 20-22) and a periphery wall element (see annotated fig. 26E [0307] lines 7-11), and a dispersing container (see annotated fig. 26E; dispersing element container includes the assembly of the tube element and the cover; dispensing system contains an aromatic substance [0307]) comprising a tube element (see annotated fig. 26 [0307]) fastened to a cover element (see annotated fig. 26E [0307]), wherein the tube element further comprises a tube head and a tube body (see annotated fig. 26E), wherein the cover element includes a cover head (see annotated fig. 26E, the cover body is a cover head), wherein the tube element is positioned at a distal end of the center wall element (see annotated fig. 26, the tube element is positioned in the center of the cartridge [0307]), wherein the cover element is positioned at a proximal end of the center wall element (see annotated fig. 26 [0307]), wherein the proximal end of the center wall element is opposite to the distal end of the center wall element (see annotated fig. 26 [0307]), wherein the tube head seals a distal end of the tube body ([0307] since the tube body and the tube head are described in [0307] to contain substances such as aromatic substances, medicinal substances, etc., or water for humidifying, it is reasonable to understand that the tube body is sealed and that the tube head seals to the tube body to prevent unintended leakage of the contained substance) and wherein the tube body is received within the center wall element (fig. 26E shows an exploded assembly view with the tube body is positioned to be inserted in the center of the opening and covered by the cover head as a components of the filter cartridge assembly [0307]).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Adams is silent on a cover body, and wherein the cover body is fastened to a proximal end of the tube body; and wherein the cover head seals a proximal end of the cover body, and wherein the tube body is received within the center wall element. Instead, Adams shows the cover element as only a flat cover head with no cover body element.
Davis teaches a container for a controlled release of vaporizable materials (fig. 5, abstract) which includes a cover head and cover body (see annotated fig. 5, impermeable barrier 18 has a cover head and cover body portion, col. 4 lines 26-39) where the distal end of the cover body is fastened to a proximal end of a tube body (see annotated figure), and wherein the cover head seals a proximal end of the cover body (fig. 5, the cover body and cover head are shown as a unitary piece and thus are sealed).
PNG
media_image2.png
431
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams’ cover element to include a cover body in addition to the cover head as taught by Davis’s fig. 5 in order to form an impermeable barrier with the tube body so that the vapor-releasing substance will only pass through a porous medium to better control the release of the vapor (Davis, col. 4 lines 26-39), which is understood to prevent leaking. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dimension the tube body, cover head and cover body to be received within the center wall element of Adams’ filter cartridge in order to ensure that the embodiment of 26E fits within the receptacle of the face mask (fig. 26A, 2610A, 2620A, corresponding to the fig. 12 receptacles, which are shown having covers over the cartridges [0307]).
Regarding Claim 2, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein a filter media element (see annotated fig. 26E, filter media [0307]) is secured between an inner surface of the periphery wall element and an outer surface of the center wall element (as seen in fig. 26E, the filter media is secured between the periphery wall and the center wall elements).
Regarding Claim 3, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein the cover body is received between the proximal end of the tube body and the proximal end of the center wall element (as modified in claim 1, it would have been obvious to dimension the cover body so that it fits within the center wall element to ensure that the cartridge assembly, when the tube and cover are installed, fits within the filter cartridge receptacle of the mask as seen in figs. 26A and 13 [0307]).
Regarding Claim 4, Adams as modified by Davis discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein a periphery portion of an inner surface of the tube head is in contact with the distal end of the center wall element (as shown in the exploded drawing of 26E, the tube head contacts the distal edge of the center wall since 26E is an embodiment of filter cartridges 2630A, 2640A that assemble into the mask as shown in fig. 26A, which corresponds to the embodiment of the mask shown in fig. 12 [0307], which is shown having a cover over the filter cartridge; in order to fit into the receptacle with a cover, the tube head and the tube cover are understood to contact the center wall in order to minimize the size and thus fit the cover as shown).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the cover body is secured to the proximal end of the tube body via at least one of an interference fit or an adhesive glue (Davis fig. 5 and col. 4 lines 26-34, the tube body 10 is hermetically sealable with impermeable barrier 18 sealed to the top so that fragrance can only escape through apertures 18a, col. 4 lines 43-48; see also col. 6 lines 1-3). The claimed phrase “secured… via at least one of an interference fit or an adhesive glue” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, the cover body is secured to the tube body through an interference fit or adhering with glue to form a sealed container. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, even though Davis uses an unspecified sealing process, it appears that the end product in the combination would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both the applicant’s product and the prior art product results in a sealed dispersing element container. Applicant is reminded that Claim 6 is not directed toward a method of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 8, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein the cover head of the cover element defines a plurality of openings (Adams fig. 26E, the cover has a plurality of openings).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 8, but is silent on further comprising: a seal film element attached to an outer surface of the cover head of the cover element, wherein the seal film element covers the plurality of openings.
Davis, however, uses a seal film element (fig. 5, hermetic seal 19, col. 4 line 41) attached to an outer surface of a cover head (fig. 5, cover head being the float top surface of 18) of the cover element, wherein the seal film element covers the plurality of openings (in Davis, 19 seals apertures 18a, col. 4 lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a seal film element on the outer surface of the cover head in Adams’ device, as taught by Davis, in order to hermetically seal the openings from releasing the vapor during shipping and storage (Davis, col. 4 lines 36-39).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 9, but is silent on wherein the dispersing container further comprises: a release film element secured to the inner surface of the cover head of the cover element.
However, Davis teaches a release film element (fig. 5, permeable barrier 16, col. 4 line 33) secured to the inner surface of the cover head of the cover element (fig. 5, col. 6 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a release film secured to the inner surface of Adams’ cover head as taught by Davis in order to provide a means of controlled means of dispersion of the vapors over a measured period of time (Davis, col. 2 lines 37-58).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 10, wherein the release film element comprises microporous material (Davis, porous barrier material 16 is permeable only to vapors at a specified rate, i.e. is microporous, col. 5 lines 62-68).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 10, further comprising: a dispersing element disposed within an inner surface of the tube body of the tube element (Adams [0307] a substance is disposed with in dispensing system of Fig. 26E) and between the release film element and the tube head of the tube element (as modified, the release film element is disposed at the inner surface of the cover head shown in Adams’ fig. 26E, thus the dispersing element is contained between the tube head and the release film element).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 13, wherein the dispersing element comprises fragrance material (Adams [0307]; Davis col. 4 line 29).
Regarding Claim 15, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, further comprising: a near-field communication (NFC) element (fig. 17A, NFC tag 1710A [0282]) attached to an inner surface of the periphery wall element (fig. 17A, 1710A is attached to the bottom surface of the periphery wall element [0282]).
Regarding Claim 16, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein the periphery wall element comprises an arc portion (see annotated fig. 26E below, “arch-shaped” [0307]), a straight portion connected to the arc portion (see annotated fig. 26E below [0307]), and a handle portion protruding from an edge of the straight portion (see annotated fig. 26E below, “tap” [0307]).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Adams discloses a method for assembling a filtration component for a respiratory protective device (fig. 26E) comprising: disposing a tube element (see annotated fig. 26E [0307]) through a center wall element of a filter body (see annotated fig. 26E, [0307]), wherein a tube head of the tube element is in contact with a distal end of the center wall element (see annotated fig. 26E and [0307] when installed, the tube head contacts the center wall element at its distal end); disposing a dispersing container within a tube body of the tube element (fig. 26E [0307] an aromatic, odor cleansing and/or medicinal substance can be included in the dispensing system shown), ; and securing a cover element to the tube element (see annotated fig. 26E, [0307]), wherein an inner surface of the cover element is in contact with a proximal end of the center wall element (fig. 26E, when assembled, the cover element is secured to the end of the tube of the dispensing system at the proximal end of the center wall element), wherein the tube body is received within the center wall element fig. 26E shows an exploded assembly view with the tube body is positioned to be inserted in the center of the opening and covered by the cover head as a components of the filter cartridge assembly [0307]).
However, Adams does not disclose the cover element having a cover head (fig. 26E, the cover element is a flat component not having a distinct cover head) and a cover body, or whether the cover body is received within the center wall element.
Davis teaches a container for a controlled release of vaporizable materials (fig. 5, abstract) which includes a cover head and cover body (see annotated fig. 5, impermeable barrier 18 has a cover head and cover body portion, col. 4 lines 26-39) where the distal end of the cover body is fastened to a proximal end of a tube body (see annotated figure), and wherein the cover head seals a proximal end of the cover body (fig. 5, the cover body and cover head are shown as a unitary piece and thus are sealed), wherein the proximal end of the cover body is opposite to the distal end of the cover body (see annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams’ cover element to include a cover body in addition to the cover head as taught by Davis in order to form an impermeable barrier so that the vapor-releasing substance will only pass through a porous medium to better control the release of the vapor (Davis, col. 4 lines 26-39).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Adams discloses a method of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose how the cover element is secured to the tube element.
Davis teaches that the cover element (fig. 5, top portion of 18) is sealed to the permeable membrane 16 via glue (col. 6 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also secure the cover element to the tube element via an adhesive glue, in order to maintain the seal between the impermeable barrier and the tube element, using the assembly method taught by Davis, as this would create a sealing connection preventing unintended vaporization through the connection between the cover element and the tube element.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Adams discloses a method of claim 17, but is silent on wherein, prior to securing the cover element to the tube element, the method further comprises: attaching a release film element to the inner surface of the cover head of the cover element.
However, Davis teaches placing a release film element (fig. 5, permeable barrier 16, col. 4 line 33) at the inner surface of the cover head of the cover element (fig. 5, col. 6 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a release film secured to the inner surface of Adams’ cover head as taught by Davis in order to provide a means of controlled means of dispersion of the vapors over a measured period of time (Davis, col. 2 lines 37-58).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Adams discloses a method of claim 17, wherein the inner surface of the cover head is opposite to the outer surface of the cover head (see annotated fig 26E below; Adams’s cover head is similar to Davis’s cover head, in the modified device, Adams’ cover head has the cover body taught by Davis).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Adams is silent on the method further comprising: attaching a seal film element to an outer surface of the cover head of the cover element.
Davis, however, attaches a seal film element (fig. 5, hermetic seal 19, col. 4 line 41) to an outer surface of a cover head (fig. 5, cover head being the float top surface of 18) of the cover element, in order to cover the plurality of openings (in Davis, 19 seals apertures 18a, col. 4 lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a seal film element on the outer surface of the cover head in Adams’ device, as taught by Davis, in order to hermetically seal the openings from releasing the vapor during shipping and storage (Davis, col. 4 lines 36-39).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Adams and Davis, further in view of Haymond (US 9155811 B1), hereafter Haymond.
Regarding Claim 5, Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 3, wherein the center wall includes a distal edge at the distal end of the center wall (see annotated fig. 26E below) and a proximal edge at the proximal end of the center wall (the bottom side of the center wall, not visible), wherein the tube head contacts the distal edge of the center wall (as shown in the exploded drawing of 26E, the tube head contacts the distal edge of the center wall since 26E is an embodiment of filter cartridges 2630A, 2640A that assemble into the mask as shown in fig. 26A, which corresponds to the embodiment of the mask shown in fig. 12 [0307], which is shown having a cover over the filter cartridge; in order to fit into the receptacle with a cover, the tube head and the tube cover are understood to contact the center wall in order to minimize the size and thus fit the cover as shown).
PNG
media_image5.png
421
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, it is not readily apparent in Adams as modified by Davis if the cover head contacts the proximal edge of the center wall.
However, Haymond teaches a fragrance device which uses a tube (fig. 1, tube 14, col. 4 lines 31-32) and a cover element (fig. 1a, blank 10, col. 4 line 31) which is installed inside the tube and has a flange (fig. 1a, supra-head 46, col. 5 line 43).
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 shape of the cover element from the shape taught by Davis to extend the cover head into a flange shape as taught by Haymond, in order to provide a flange which allows for a user to insert and remove the cover element from the tube (Haymond col. 5 lines 48-54). This configuration would result in the cover head contacts the proximal edge of the center wall element (when installed as seen in Adams’ fig. 26E; note that the examiner has interpreted “inner surface of the cover body” in the same manner as applicant, which is the inward-facing surface of the cover body would contact the end of the center wall element).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the cover body in contact with the proximal end of the center wall element (as modified by Davis, the cover body of Davis forming a dispersing element container would be positioned in the center of the filter body of Adams so that the outer surface of the cover body contacts the proximal end of the center wall element, when installed as shown in Adams fig. 26E).
However, the modified Adams is silent on an inner surface of the cover head being in contact with the proximal end of the center wall element (as modified, the inner surface of Davis’s cover head appears to not contact anything outside the container).
However, Haymond teaches a fragrance device which uses a tube (fig. 1, tube 14, col. 4 lines 31-32) and a cover element (fig. 1a, blank 10, col. 4 line 31) which is installed inside the tube and has a flange (fig. 1a, supra-head 46, col. 5 line 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the shape of the cover element from the shape taught by Davis to extend the cover head into a flange shape as taught by Haymond, in order to provide a flange which allows for inserting the cap into and removing the cap from the tube (Haymond col. 5 lines 48-54). This configuration would result in an inner surface of the cover body being in contact with the proximal end of the center wall element (when installed as seen in Adams’ fig. 26E; note that the examiner has interpreted “inner surface of the cover body” in the same manner as applicant, which is the inward-facing surface of the cover body would contact the end of the center wall element).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Adams and Davis, further in view of Gruenbacher et al. (US 2007/023189 A1), hereafter Gruenbacher.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Adams discloses a filtration component of claim 11, but is silent on the material of the microporous release film.
Gruenbacher teaches the user of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a microporous material as a suitable material choice for a semi-permeable membrane for releasing volatile active substances ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the microporous release film in the modified Adams device from PTFE as taught by Gruenbacher, as it is a known material in the art for being semi-permeable to release a volatile active liquid which permits vapor to pass without allowing significant liquid leakage (Gruenbacher [0088]).
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 SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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) 270-7410. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785