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
It is first noted that the Applicant’s effective filing date for this application is December 30th, 2022, as the continuation-in-part application (from which this application claims benefit) does not provide support for the ultraviolet light limitations as set forth herein. Thus, this application will be examined accordingly.
Claim Interpretation
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 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 12-17 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 12 discloses “A UV light source” in line 8. However, there is already “A UV light source” claimed in line 4. Thus, it is unclear if there are two different UV light sources, or just a single UV light source. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, and discloses “a breathing tube” in line 5. However, there is already “a breathing tube” claimed in line 8 of claim 12. Therefore, it is unclear if the two breathing tubes claimed in claims 12 & 13 are different breathing tubes, or one in the same. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 depends from claim 12, and discloses “a breathing tube” in line 1. However, there is already “a breathing tube” claimed in line 8 of claim 12. Therefore, it is unclear if the two breathing tubes claimed in claims 12 & 15 are different breathing tubes, or one in the same. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pisharodi (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0096701).
With respect to claims 1-3, Pisharodi discloses a breathing apparatus configured to kill harmful organisms in air, comprising:
A vest (paragraphs 7, 35 and 107) including:
An Ultraviolet (UV) light chamber disposed on the vest, wherein the light chamber includes a UV light source (150) as set forth in paragraph 36;
The UV light source (150) exposes air disposed within the UV light chamber to UV light at a predetermined wavelength (paragraphs 52-58) of a range of 100-300 and/or at least 222 nanometers (concerning claims 2 & 3; paragraphs 52-67); and
The UV light chamber is in fluid communication with a breathing tube (134/220A);
The breathing tube (134/220A), including a first end, wherein the first end connects to the UV light chamber, and a second end disposed opposite the first end (Figures 1B, 5A and 7B); and
A breathing mask (500/508), wherein the second end of the breathing tube (134/220A) connects to the breathing mask (500/508), and the UV light chamber and the breathing mask are in fluid communication via the breathing tube as shown in Figures 1B, 5A and 7B.
Note regarding the limitations of the chamber being disposed on the vest, said UV light chamber must necessarily be disposed on the vest. Further, should the vest be considered some sort of pack in which the UV light chamber is disposed therein, said UV light chamber would still rest on the interior sidewall and base of said pack. As such, Pisharodi meets these limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Pisharodi continues to disclose that the UV light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) to emit UV light (paragraph 62).
With respect to claim 5, the reference further discloses that the UV light chamber comprises a filter (paragraphs 46, 79 and 81).
Concerning claims 6 & 7, Pisharodi discloses that the vest further comprises a battery power source connected to the UV light source to supply power to said UV light source (paragraphs 36 and 109-111).
With respect to claim 8, Pisharodi discloses a display mounted on the vest (paragraph 115). More specifically, because the display is mounted on the UV light chamber, and the UV light chamber is mounted on the vest (see above), then said display is mounted on the vest as well (paragraph 115).
Concerning claim 9, Pisharodi also discloses that the display is in electronic communication with the power source (paragraphs 115-117).
Regarding claim 10, Pisharodi also discloses that the second end of the breathing tube (220A) is selectably coupleable to the breathing mask (paragraph 100).
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgerald (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0308407).
Concerning claim 12, Fitzgerald discloses a breathing apparatus including a UV light chamber configured to kill harmful organisms in air, comprising:
An air intake (Figure 7);
A UV light source (23);
An air intake channel (47) disposed between the air intake and the UV light source (23) as shown in Figures 7 & 8, wherein the air intake and the UV light chamber are in fluid communication via the air intake channel (Figures 7 & 8):
A UV light source (23) disposed in the UV light chamber (Figure 8) wherein a breathing tube (3) is selectably coupleable to the UV light chamber and the UV light chamber and the breathing tube are in fluid communication (Figures 1 & 20; paragraph 60).
With respect to claim 15, Fitzgerald also discloses a breathing tube (3) disposed on the UV light chamber (Figures 1 & 20), wherein the breathing tube (3) includes a first end and a second end disposed opposite the first end, and wherein the first end of the breathing tube is coupled to the UV light chamber (paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 16, the reference further discloses that a breathing mask (33) is selectable coupleable to the second end of the breathing tube (paragraph 60).
Concerning claim 17, Fitzgerald continues to disclose that the UV light source exposes air within the UV light chamber to light at a predetermined wavelength (paragraphs 56 & 57).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Squires (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0302187).
Concerning claim 12, Squires discloses a breathing apparatus including a UV light chamber configured to kill harmful organisms in air (Figure 1), comprising:
An air intake (16);
A UV light source (30);
An air intake channel disposed between the air intake (16) and the UV light source (30) as set forth in paragraph 31, wherein the air intake (16) and the UV light chamber are in fluid communication via the air intake channel (Figure 1):
A UV light source (30) disposed in the UV light chamber (Figure 1) wherein a breathing tube (112) is selectably coupleable to the UV light chamber and the UV light chamber and the breathing tube (112) are in fluid communication (Figure 1; paragraphs 95-97).
With respect to claim 13, Squires also discloses a first one-way valve is disposed between the UV light chamber and a second air channel, and a second one-way valve is disposed on the second air channel between the second channel and a breathing tube (paragraphs 89, 90, 99 and 101).
Regarding claim 14, Squires continues to disclose that the breathing tube (112) includes a first end and a second end disposed opposite the first end (Figure 5A);
The first end is selectively coupleable to the UV light chamber (paragraph 95); and
The second end includes a breathing mask (110) as shown in Figure 5A.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trent et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0393843).
Concerning claims 18-20, Trent discloses a system, comprising:
An airplane vehicle (paragraphs 31-34); and
A breathing apparatus disposed in the vehicle (Figure 6), the breathing apparatus including:
A UV light apparatus (101), including:
An interior space including a UV light chamber (paragraphs 19, 21 & 22), and
A UV light source (138) and filter (136) disposed within the UV light chamber (paragraphs 21-27 and 31);
A breathing tube (162) including first end and a second end disposed opposite the first end (Figure 6); and
Wherein the first end of the breathing tube connects to the UV light apparatus (101), and the second end of the4 breathing tube is selectably coupleable to a breathing mask (164) as set forth in paragraphs 31-35;
Wherein the UV light source exposes air within the interior space to a predetermined wavelength (paragraphs 21 & 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisharodi (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0096701).
Regarding claim 8, although it is the position of the Office that Pisharodi discloses a display mounted on the vest, the following is provided for further prosecution. Should the Applicant opine that the display is not mounted on the vest, the location of the display with respect to the vest and apparatus does not provide a patentable distinction from the apparatus of Pisharodi. More specifically, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). See MPEP 2144.04 [VI](C). Similarly, the particular placement of the display being mounted either on the UV light chamber or the vest will not create a patentable distinction over Pisharodi, as such would not modify the operation of the device and would be considered a mere matter of design choice. Thus, claim 8 is rejected over Pisharodi as well.
Concerning claim 9, Pisharodi also discloses that the display is in electronic communication with the power source (paragraphs 115-117).
Similarly, as set forth above with respect to claim 8, the positioning of the UV light chamber being disposed on the front, back of side of the vest will not create a patentable distinction over Pisharodi; as such would not modify the operation of the device and would be considered a mere matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 [VI](C). Thus, the claiming of the UV light chamber being disposed on a back side of the vest in claim 11 is not a patentable distinction over Pisharodi in view of In re Japikse and In re Kuhle as noted above because such would not modify the operation of the device and would be considered a mere matter of engineering design choice. Thus, claim 11 is rejected over Pisharodi as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799